Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of fake engine noise

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 303 posts

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#281

Post by freehunter »

CalRobert wrote: post #275
freehunter wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're disagreeing with something I never said. From what I understand, you're asking me for a source stating that drivers can hit someone and not be at fault, while your argument is that drivers are never at fault? I guess I still don't get what kind of source you're asking me for. But apparently you believe there is such a thing as a speed so low that you cannot hit a pedestrian. Have you ever watched some…

This is apparently a downvote magnet but to clarify, you wrote: "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." This is the statement with which I disagree. There are many situations where drivers don't face penalties if they hit and injure/kill a pedestrian, not just one. Anyway, my…

I think that's a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation of what I meant. I didn't say "there is only one situation", I said "there is one situation".This could be interpreted as "only one" or as "one of many". I meant it in the context of "one of many". There's an implied "there's (at least) one situation", but without that explicitly stated, you're right that there could be an implied "there's (only) one situation".

So allow me to clarify my original post: There's at least one situation where drivers don't face penalties.

And then let me word it a little more strongly: There's only one situation where drivers, under the law, don't face penalties: when the driver was not at fault. Because the situations you listed are those where the driver legally could have faced penalties but did not.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#282

Post by jarek »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #244
jarek wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly not scalable in the future, where amount of electric vehicles will keep increasing (not just cars: scooters and e-bikes too). I'm a fairly passionate pedestrian but we can't expect to be able to stay safe by hearing alone. Consideration for blind people is an important argument but it seems so much saner to require quiet vehicles to have a radio transponder that can send exact speed and direction rather than…

Not following. How do radio signals help a kid stepping off a curb? Not everybody owns a phone; not everybody has it on and running the 'don't get run over' app. We've been trained as a people to respond to environmental cues. The learning period to adjust to different cues (beeps, phone apps etc) is another phrase for 'lots of people get hit by silent cars'. I'd suggest a period of dual cues - make noise, AND whatev…

Radio signals to help blind people, replacing sound.

The learning period for "vehicles don't make noise at speeds that can kill you" has already begun. Priuses have been around for 10 years.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#283

Post by marssaxman »

kaybe wrote: post #158
CalRobert wrote: post #154

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.

It's dangerous if pedestrians and cyclists expect to hear cars and they approach silently.

A car would have to be some sort of magical hovercraft to approach silently, because tires rolling on asphalt make lots of noise whether the engine contributes or not.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#284

Post by [deleted] »

davegardner wrote: post #115
ferrari8608 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wonder, why does it have to be engine noise in particular? If I saw a Tesla, Leaf, Volt, etc. I wouldn't expect any engine or exhaust noise. Beeping, maybe.

I expect there'll be a new set of businesses built up around custom engine noises. If the manufactures don't make it easy to load your own MP3, then you'll probably be able to take it to a car mod specialist.

[deleted]

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#285

Post by vacri »

upofadown wrote: post #252
vacri wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you've never been driving along and had a pedestrian absent-mindedly step into the road in front of you. That's the kind of thing that engine noise helps avoid. Read some of the other comments on this page. For what it's worth, most of my travel is on trams - not foot, cycle, or car. Thanks for the patronising comment, though.

The sudden change of subject suggests that the patronizing comment was appropriate... We are not dissing your tribe... You don't have to be defensive...

What tribe do you think I belong to? I was pointing out that anyone can be negligent.

And seriously: "Yeah, I was being patronising, but don't be defensive about it"? If you can't handle being called on your own behaviour, don't do it to others.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#286

Post by jthurman »

marssaxman wrote: post #283
kaybe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's dangerous if pedestrians and cyclists expect to hear cars and they approach silently.

A car would have to be some sort of magical hovercraft to approach silently, because tires rolling on asphalt make lots of noise whether the engine contributes or not.

This is true, but as a cyclist, often the sound of my own tires on the road, plus the wind in my ears and sometimes even my own breathing, masks the road noise of an oncoming electric car.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#287

Post by matmann2001 »

I don't mind channeling the REAL engine noise into the car. Like the article said, it can be preferable to the sound of bumps in the road or whining of wind. And for car enthusiasts who actually work on their own cars, sound is a key part of detecting and diagnosing issues with the car.

But they need to cut it out with the fake noise. That's just glamor and it's unnecessary. The only exception I would support is for electric cars, for the purpose of pedestrian safety.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#288

Post by allendoerfer »

CalRobert wrote: post #276
allendoerfer wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany it is generally the other way round, especially when children are involved. The driver of a car has to take care of pedestrians and cyclists. Even if a driver follows the rules perfectly fine, § 1.1 of the law (you have to take care of others) always beats the rest.

Interestingly, Germany is also the most wonderful place I know for a drive. They're well-trained, considerate, and skilled.

You get what you (let people) pay for. A drivers license costs ~1500€ here.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#289

Post by marssaxman »

jthurman wrote: post #286
marssaxman wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car would have to be some sort of magical hovercraft to approach silently, because tires rolling on asphalt make lots of noise whether the engine contributes or not.

This is true, but as a cyclist, often the sound of my own tires on the road, plus the wind in my ears and sometimes even my own breathing, masks the road noise of an oncoming electric car.

Reasonable point - I was thinking about it only from the perspective of a pedestrian, as I don't ride a bicycle myself.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#290

Post by userbinator »

joezydeco wrote: post #221

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.

The digital TVs and monitors I've used would all show some variant of "No Signal. Check Signal Cable." in a little slowly-moving box that bounces around the screen. Perhaps some manufacturers thought that was not obvious enough to people accustomed to classic analogue TV.
Post reply on HN