Blind People: Hybrid Cars Pose Hazard

I love it when two special interest groups go at each other. Most people probably like the fact they are quiet, as most people don't like another type of pollution - noise pollution. But the first time a visually challenged person gets run over by someone in a hybrid car....

I wonder if they'll manage to force the auto companies to put some kind of noisemaker on every freakin hybrid that is manufactured so this small minority of blind people can hear them?

oh god...

there is always someone that gets pissed of no matter what you do. but is a democracy not ruled by the majority? even though we are supposed to protects their right, there are other ways. some use a "clicker", kinda like a bat...

or add a radio signal, and they get a sensor...


ps: i bike, and often depend on sound as well, since sometimes it is really hard to look around some corners...

This isn't a democracy, its a representative republic. Anyway, yeah, there's all kinds of things to add to every hybrid made so that all 12 blind people who walk around by themselves can hear them. Not saying that has to be a bad idea, I just think its amusing when special interest groups clash.

I'm glad they brought it up, because it does change things and that's something that has to be thought about and dealt with.

It's back to the worn out issue of not being able to give everyone what they want. So you have to make some compromises somehow.

Stupid Blind people. get a dog.

I think the blind should be considered, it cant be difficult to fit some kind of equipment that makes a quiet-ish noise. And surely it could be an unobtrusive noise that the blind can associate with cars?

Who's going to pay for it? The hybrid owners don't need it.

Would they not be responsible for the decreased ability for the blind to feel safe from cars, would they not be putting the blind at risk.
You know what, car owners do not need direction indicators either.
(PS bit of a moot point in this case, because a sound system would probably not cost that much.)

Answers to your questions:

No.

No.

Wrong.

Who's gonna pay for the sound systems?

The companies who make already obscene profits are going to pay for it, in order to accommodate for others. And they'll probably be able to dress it up as "helping those less fortunate" and make a bit more profit because they're a nice company.

That's already their choice. Should they be forced to?

BTW, the consumer will pay for it, not the company. The company passes the cost to the consumer.

Car owners do not need direction indicator.
Large vehicles do not need driving backwards-bleeps.
Private coal power plants do not need filters. (Nor does anything else.)
Private nuclear plants are fine, and they do not need melt-down protection either.
You can just put dangerous chemicals in regular containers, its cheaper.
Guns dont need safeties.
Buildings dont need inspections.
Rockets dont need self-destructs.

But they are forced to pay for these! God damn, this society sucks! Where is the freedom!!

Wow, you been busy. Hint: The difference between the safety features you mentioned for cars is they are an aid to everyone on the road. A noisemaker added to hybrids is beneficial for the 12 blind people.

You're unbelievably arrogant.

• 1.3 million Americans are legally blind.
• 5.5 million elderly Americans are blind or visually impaired

All though that is a minority, they should be cared for. They did not choose to be blind, yet I'm sure there is more 'care' for people who make lifestyle choices - such as vegetarians (I have never been in a restaurant that didn't serve some vegetarian food.)

And as for passing the costs on, I'm sure, even if they did pass it on to the customer, it would be a minimal cost, that would benefit a lot of people.

Sure, there should be a majority rule - when anything that is implemented is a hindrance to the majority. This kind of thing would not hinder anyone.

Out of all those blind people, why haven't any of them been hit already if this noise maker is so damn vital?

Just how much do you think it would cost? I would guess under $10 including development costs (though I can think of ways right off that it could be done for 5 cents) - you really think that is a valid issue to complain about? On a vehicle that people are paying , what $25,000+ for? Sounds like whining for the sake of whining to me.

Maybe the issue will shift focus after the first law suit, where the settlement for one injured blind person would have paid for a noisemaking device for every hybrid car on the road today including development costs.

A playing card and a paper clip?

Who gives a shit how much it would cost. A tin of Escudo costs less that $10, should you have to send me one being its so cheap and I want some?

I have no idea what Escudo is, but thats irrelevant I'm sure.

The point of the cost was (I think, without checking the posts) raised by you in a sense of 'who's going to pay for it, and why should they have to?'

My answer is that the blind people are part of the community, and members of communities look after each other - not exclusively in ways that will directly benefit every single member of the community. That rationale could be used to say, 90% of the people don't ever travel between point A and point B, so we should not use community funds to build a bridge between A and B. Or, only 5% of people are genetically disposed to contract condition x, so we should spend no public funds in medical research that addresses that condition.

I have little doubt you would agree no public funds should be spent on medical research (I think you've said before it should all be done by private enterprise ), but once again that highlights the difference between you in your 'us vs them', 'me vs everyone else' mentality, and those who believe in community spirit at every level.

The numbers you give are irrelevant to the topic. How many of those 1.3 million legally blind Americans go out without some kind of sighted helper?

How many of those 5.5 million elderly Americans who are otherwise blind or visually impaired (That number approaches uselessness, by the way, since it's a composite of two different numbers: the numbers of blind people and the numbers of those who are only visually impaired) are impaired to the point of being unable to identify an oncoming vehicle, and of those number, how many do not have visual aids? My vision is about as good as a mole's, but I have corrective lenses to nullify that impairment. I suspect many of those visually impaired are in possession of some kind of visual aid.Because market penetration of hybrids is so low right now?