Death to pedestrians!

[sgt1372]

Fuse #34 in the box under the hood on the right top corner is Pedestrian friendly alert function or PFAF fuse. See page 265/266 of the owners manual PDF. I pulled it out, I like the sound of silence. If you hit a pedestrian, with or without the sound, you are most likely at fault.

You are not necessarily "at fault" for hitting a pedestrian in all cases -- each case will be decided on its own facts -- but I doubt that anyone's legal liability for hitting a pedestrian will turn on whether the driver has disabled the pedestrian alert in his/her Bolt or not.

 

[gpsman]

I AM TOTALLY 100% IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THE FUSE FOR THIS SILLY DEVICE! I'm so glad to learn it is this easy. DONE!

This TOTALLY WORTHLESS "feature" tries to fix a problem that does not exsist.

Caution: Real SCIENCE follows.

Pedestrian vs. Vehicle deaths 5 year average between 2001 and 2006 in the USA:

4795 deaths total*

5 deaths to blind persons* (all to gas or diesel vehicles)
4790 deaths to NON BLIND persons

Now, sure, EV's were rare between 2001 and 2006.
BUT... this illustrates perfectly, and without ambiguity, the population size we are "trying" to protect.

FIVE (5) persons per year, nation-wide.

Consider EV's are 1% of all vehicles.
(1% in California, much less than 1% in most states)

Now THIS MEANS SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING we develped a law and the noise making hardware to protect 0.05 persons vs. EV per year.

Or, more realistically, TO POTENTIALLY SAVE ONE BLIND PERSON DEATH EVERY 20 years!

Now, consider EV drivers are aware of their quietness.(I am. Everyone reading this is.) Consider most EV drivers will drive more cautiously, more slowly, and more attentively in high pedestrian areas.

It is NOT unreasonable to believe this extra knowledge and attention will PREVENT 50% of would be accidents. Lowering blind deaths by EV to one every 40 years.

That's what the unbiased, objective data tells us.
This is an emotional concept (any pedestian vs. automobile death is traumatic) and our emotions cloud our, and our policy makers decisons.

Our focus needs to be elsewhere to save lives.
This sound maker is literally useless.

If you insist the sound maker is a clever, well thought out, necessary device, you are mistaken. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of science. And science proves the noise makers are unnecessary.

MEN AND WOMEN OF SCIENCE - REMOVE YOUR SILLY NOISE MAKERS NOW!

------------------------------------------------------

* The US Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) captures data on all US motor vehicle related deaths occurring in areas routinely open to the public. Data files are available showing the characteristics of the persons and vehicles involved, and describing each incident. FARS data capture whether or not an individual is legally blind in a series of variables flagging factors that may have contributed to the accident.

FARS is a division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

 

[CGameProgrammer]

LOL!
So, is that why my Bolt honks at me (3 quick honks) when I step in front of it while it's running to look at or get something?

No it's not. That is not the pedestrian warning sound and in fact is not on the base Bolt at all. My car has no external sensors whatsoever. The pedestrian warning sound that this thread is about is a sound that plays continuously the entire time you are not in Park or Neutral and are moving at 14 mph or less (including being stationary). It has nothing to do with whether or not anybody is around.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Or, more realistically, TO POTENTIALLY SAVE ONE BLIND PERSON DEATH EVERY 20 years!

First, you don't seem to take into account non-fatal collisions. Is a broken bone or three less important than your love for something that used to be a contradiction in terms: a silent vehicle?

Second... IF I WERE THAT ONE BLIND PERSON I'D BE DAMNED GLAD ABOUT IT.

Third, numbers are going to do nothing but increase, if people like you win this one, because both the number of EVs and the number of distracted drivers and pedestrians is increasing. Hell, the number of collisions will increase even with a VSP installed. Let's not make the increase any larger. It's human nature to ignore risks that aren't imminent or that don't involve us personally getting badly hurt, but that doesn't make it rational behavior.

 

[dandrewk]

What I don't understand - just what the heck is wrong with a warning system that the driver can't hear?

And sorry, the "blind person" analogy has so many holes in it it's not worth debating. This warning system saves lives, and just how does one gather data on a life that wasn't lost? How about children, best known for their lack of attention when it comes to safety?

The point is, if it's not hurting anyone, why bother taking -any- steps removing this safety feature? Who knows, it could save someone (including yourself) some horrific grief down the line.

 

[LeftieBiker]

It sounds a little mean, and I guess it is, but I'd like to see the anti-VSP folks get a variation on what Prius drivers have had to endure for years: a VSP that only makes sounds - LOUD ones - inside the car. ;-)

 

[gpsman]

What I don't understand - just what the heck is wrong with a warning system that the driver can't hear?

The debate rages on because I hear it and find it a distraction to me. And l'm around it hours a day. A passerby is near it for seconds.

The debate rages on because it is advertised as fixing a problem. But no problem exists. It is a fallacy.

I am offended as a human being when someone pretends to do something for the greater good that does nothing for the greater good.

There are ten thousand more importaint issues that could improve the health & safety of mankind. I find it frustrating that "people" (aka lawmakers) feel all high and mighty and push through rules and regulations that are without merit.

I know what you ("you" collectively the supporters of the sound machines) like to say.... If it does no harm, let it be. Maybe it will help someone avoid accident. And "If just one life is saved, it is worth it." NO IT IS NOT.

Until the bigger issues are addressed, isn't it a crime against humaity to focus on something with such minuscule impact as one person in 20 years?

For illustrative purposes, lets say the sound machines cost $25. Lets say in 5 years 1 million EV's were sold.
$25 million dollars were spent on sound machines to maybe save 1 life.

Each malaria vaccine costs $25.
Each vaccine can save one life.
This is very expensive to people in underdeveloped countries in tropical areas with rampant malaria.

If car manufacturers donated the same amount of dollars (or you and I did collectively by donating money we saved by not having to buy stupid noise makers) we could save 1 Million lives* without any more hardship to those of us in 1st world countries.

This is why I find those stupid noise makers so offensive. This is why they are literally bad for society as a whole. While they do not directly cause malaria, they are preventing malaria from being cured. OR GETTING IN THE WAY OF TEN THOUSAND OTHER WORLD HEALTH ISSUES OF GREATER IMPORTANCE.

THIS IS THE POINT.
I'd like to send a message to Chevy and have people start physically removing the device and mailing it back saying "recycle this, and donate the funds to a more worthy cause".

---------------------------------------

* The World Health Organization estimates 212 million people are sickend by malaria EACH YEAR.
430,000 people a year die from malaria.

 

[devbolt]

The so-called stupid noisemakers will soon be a required feature of these cars. Starting in September 2019, these pedestrian warning systems are mandatory in the US. Europe gets them 5 months earlier in April 2019.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds

 

[LeftieBiker]

The debate rages on because it is advertised as fixing a problem. But no problem exists. It is a fallacy.

I am offended as a human being when someone pretends to do something for the greater good that does nothing for the greater good.

You're going to be really pissed off when you find out that some automakers have been quietly redesigning car noses over the last decade, to make car-pedestrian collisions more survivable for the pedestrian(s). Damn those money-wasting do-gooder corporations!

 

[SeanNelson]

...Now, sure, EV's were rare between 2001 and 2006.
BUT... this illustrates perfectly, and without ambiguity, the population size we are "trying" to protect.

FIVE (5) persons per year, nation-wide.

The gaping hole in your argument is to assume that sighted persons don't also benefit from hearing an approaching vehicle. This is even more true today than it was at the time of your stats, since the proliferation of smart phones has vastly increased the number of distracted pedestrians.

 

[SeanNelson]

For illustrative purposes, lets say the sound machines cost $25.

The "sound machine" costs nothing for each additional car since it uses the same hardware as other necessary functions (such as chirping the car when you try to do something it doesn't like). We know this because when you remove the fuse those other functions also stop working.

It's just software - a one-time development cost.

 

[sgt1372]

LOL!
So, is that why my Bolt honks at me (3 quick honks) when I step in front of it while it's running to look at or get something?

No it's not. That is not the pedestrian warning sound and in fact is not on the base Bolt at all. My car has no external sensors whatsoever. The pedestrian warning sound that this thread is about is a sound that plays continuously the entire time you are not in Park or Neutral and are moving at 14 mph or less (including being stationary). It has nothing to do with whether or not anybody is around.

Ok, so, why does the car honk 3 times when I exit it while it's running? Isn't that a "warning" of some type?

Also, FWIW, I don't really notice any exterior sound while the car is running while in D or L. So, I guess it really doesn't matter to me.

 

[EldRick]

Yes, sgt1372, if you read your fine manual, you will discover that this happens because you left the car running and exited with the keyfob in your pocket.
It is warning you not to be foolish and leave a car with the engine turned on.

 

[sgt1372]

Yes, sgt1372, if you read your fine manual, you will discover that this happens because you left the car running and exited with the keyfob in your pocket. It is warning you not to be foolish and leave a car with the engine turned on.

Read the manual? You gest! :lol:

Thanks for the info. I do read the manual but generally only to try to figure out things that are causing me problems. The triple honk was just a curiosity which I thought was probably occurring for the reason you described.

FWIW, I do make sure the parking brake is engaged and the car is in Park before exiting the car. Sometimes you just have to get out while it's running to get something in the garage or to check on something before parking.

Does the car turn itself off if you're away too long? Going to check the manual to see if it says anything about that.

 

[EldRick]

IIRC, it will shut down after a half-hour...

 

[BerkeleyBowlt]

The gaping hole in your argument is to assume that sighted persons don't also benefit from hearing an approaching vehicle. This is even more true today than it was at the time of your stats, since the proliferation of smart phones has vastly increased the number of distracted pedestrians.

Yes, exactly.

Yesterday I was driving maybe 8 MPH on a residential street, and a careless pedestrian who was looking intently at something in the other direction stepped in front of me. I think he heard the car, because before he got too far, his head turned to look in my direction, then he stopped and took a step back.

I wouldn't have hit him -- I was paying attention. And maybe he would have looked in my direction anyway. (And maybe the Bolt's pedestrian braking would have stopped the car anyway; has anyone actually had it activate?)

But some small percentage of the time, I wouldn't have noticed him, due to distraction, darkness, poor visibility, or the tendency of pedestrians to appear from between parked trucks.

And some small percentage of the time, he wouldn't have seen the car, for similar reasons. But he could still have heard the noisemaker.

The argument against the noisemaker seems to be that these percentages are tiny. Maybe they are, but you have to multiply them by millions of interactions a day. It's not like "pedestrians walking in front of cars" is rare.

Also, I roll down the windows for a moment at stop signs where cross traffic doesn't stop and there's poor visibility, to listen for cars coming. You can often hear them before you see them. Sound is useful: two senses are better than one.

I consider myself an excellent driver (perhaps I'm wrong), but I know that's not the same thing as a perfect driver. Nobody on this forum can say they've never been distracted and not noticed something they should have. And there are many situations where the only reason a car doesn't hit a pedestrian is that the pedestrian knows the car is there and doesn't walk in front of it, regardless of the driver's skill. I appreciate any reasonable help in making pedestrians aware that a car is near. It would be a good idea to apply minimum noise standards to all cars, including ICE vehicles.

As to the legality/liability of removing the fuse: If a child or blind person gets killed or injured by a car that has a disabled noisemaker, it's likely that the police accident investigators will notice this fact. Even if the person stepped/ran right in front of the car and there was no way to stop, a lawyer could probably convince a jury that the child/person wouldn't have done so if the noisemaker had been working, whether that's true or not.

Intentionally disabling manufacturer safety features is a Very Bad Idea, no matter how rare the accident. I used to work for a business owner who later went to jail for a year when an employee was killed in a freak accident due to a disabled safety lockout while cleaning a machine. That safety lockout was seen as pointless, and you could easily make the same argument that it saved no more than one life every 20 years across the country. That didn't help him one little bit.

All that said, I also don't like the particular sound chosen in the Bolt, although I suspect there are reasons (for example, using different frequencies in the whirling sound probably makes it easier to localize).

 

[SeanNelson]

Also, I roll down the windows for a moment at stop signs where cross traffic doesn't stop and there's poor visibility, to listen for cars coming. You can often hear them before you see them. Sound is useful: two senses are better than one.

I've been driving for 4 decades now and I have never heard of or seen this being done (might be something to do with the fact that for the first couple of those decades I always had to use a crank to roll the windows up or down). But it makes so much sense that I'm going to start using it too. And in an EV or hybrid with no intruding engine noise it's all the more valuable. Thanks for the great tip!

 

[gpsman]

For illustrative purposes, lets say the sound machines cost $25.

The "sound machine" costs nothing for each additional car since it uses the same hardware as other necessary functions (such as chirping the car when you try to do something it doesn't like). We know this because when you remove the fuse those other functions also stop working.

It's just software - a one-time development cost.

Nope. There is a specific noise maker just for this one purpose. And maybe my car is broken but I've never heard it "chirp". It only honks various honks with the same horn that is on the steering wheel.

 

[gpsman]

BerkeleyBowlt, I feel you have completely missed my point.

What if's and might haves don't count.
What counts is what does happen and we have years of solid data on what really happens.

What if I win the lottery tomorrow?
What might have happened if I married Brooke Shields. What if electricity was never discovered?

EV's or PHEV's DO NOT KILL OR INJURE PEOPLE more often than gasoline and diesel vehicles. FACT. If you argue with math, you will lose every time. Math proves my point.

YOU CAN'T invent a device for a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. Simple. See my final remarks below.

Yesterday I was driving maybe 8 MPH on a residential street, and a careless pedestrian who was looking intently at something in the other direction stepped in front of me. I think he heard the car, because before he got too far, his head turned to look in my direction, then he stopped and took a step back.

I wouldn't have hit him -- I was paying attention. And maybe he would have looked in my direction anyway. (And maybe the Bolt's pedestrian braking would have stopped the car anyway; has anyone actually had it activate?)

But some small percentage of the time, I wouldn't have noticed him, due to distraction, darkness, poor visibility, or the tendency of pedestrians to appear from between parked trucks.

And some small percentage of the time, he wouldn't have seen the car, for similar reasons. But he could still have heard the noisemaker.

The argument against the noisemaker seems to be that these percentages are tiny. Maybe they are, but you have to multiply them by millions of interactions a day. It's not like "pedestrians walking in front of cars" is rare.

We have! This is to the root of my point! WE HAVE MULTIPLIED THE RISK of an EV colliding with pedestrians and compared it to REAL LIFE DATA- not therories, not speculation, not models, not assumptrions. REAL LIFE DATA shows people are NOT BEING INJURED BY EVs and PHEVs ad HEVs.

Supporters of noise machines are doing so without factual basis. There is no scientific justification to it. But you are welcome to your beliefs and superstitions. And I am welcome to not have needless devices on my car.

If you say some lawyer will try to place blame on me after an accident without noise makers, I have no fear. My lawyer will prove the pedestrian acted unsafe, illegally, was drunk, on drugs, without sleep, listening to ear pods, reading a text message, chewing gum, and trying to walk at the same time. The odds are HUGELY stacked in my favor.

 

[SeanNelson]

WE HAVE MULTIPLIED THE RISK of an EV colliding with pedestrians and compared it to REAL LIFE DATA- not therories, not speculation, not models, not assumptrions.

You have taken one point of real life data and mixed it with a very big, erroneous assumption (that noisemakers only protect the blind) to come up with a fake conclusion. Sorry, I'm not buying it, and I don't think anyone else with the ability to think critically will either.