It will probably take a day or so for the bill to show up in the usual places so we don't yet know the language. Bob Wilson
For counter arguments, start with last year's NHTSA hearing record: http://www.regulations.gov/ - search "NHTSA-2008-0108-0020" for the opposition report. "NHTSA-2008-0108" gives all of submittals The most powerful arguments come from Dr. Hogan's report last year: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Counts and rates of death and injuries. • From 2002 to 2006, on average, five legally blind pedestrians per year were killed in motor vehicle accidents in the US (Table 1). • From 2001 to 2004, on average, 40 legally blind pedestrians were hospitalized as the result of a motor vehicle accident (Table 6). • Over this period, the number of legally blind pedestrians who received emergency room treatment but were not admitted to the hospital was too small to estimate. Based on the accident and death rates for all pedestrians, we would have expected to find a further 20 blind pedestrians with ER treatment but no hospital admission (Section 4.3). We found only indirect evidence to validate that. • On a per-capita basis, the average legally blind person is less likely to be killed or hospitalized as a result of being hit by a car than the average sighted individual. Legally blind individuals accounted for 0.11 percent of deaths and 0.15 percent of hospitalizations. But they account for 0.43 percent of the US population, or 0.23 percent of the US population under age 80 (Section 4.4). Hybrids and pedestrian deaths. • Over this period, no deaths of legally blind pedestrians involved a Prius (Table 3) or any other hybrid vehicle (Table 4). • For all US pedestrian deaths (blind and sighted), 11 deaths involved a Prius (Table 3). (The Prius was singled out here because it is the only model with large production volume that was produced solely as a hybrid.) The Prius was no more likely to be involved in a pedestrian death than the average passenger vehicle (Table 5), accounting for 0.05 percent of registered vehicles and pedestrian deaths over this period. Causes of blind pedestrian deaths. • Over this period, pickup trucks were the vehicles most commonly involved in a blind pedestrian death (Table 3). • For both blind and sighted individuals, only about 10 percent of pedestrian deaths were coded as occurring as the result of being struck while walking in a crosswalk. The rest occurred in other locations or location not coded. • More than two-thirds of both blind and sighted pedestrians were listed as contributing in some way to the accident. • Of those tested, slightly more than one-third of both blind and sighted pedestrian decedents tested positive for alcohol. Summary • Hybrids appear no more dangerous than other vehicles, in terms of all pedestrian deaths. • There has been no reported case of a blind pedestrian being killed by a hybrid. • The legally blind appear less at risk than others, in terms of pedestrian deaths per capita. • By and large, there appears to be little difference between blind and sighted pedestrian in terms of how and why they die in vehicular crashes. My problem is adding noise makers to hybrids makes them just as deadly as today's cars that kill 4,700 pedestrians a year. In contrast, Euro NCAP is working to make car-pedestrian accidents less lethal. This is a safety approach for all pedestrians, not one designed for the less than 1% of the population who are blind. But let's see if they submitted the same language as last year. Most of all, keep your "spider sensors" tuned for the 'press release' that will again try to make false claims. Then answer the news reports with the facts and data. BTW, one thing that would help is to visit your Congressman and let them know what you think of this nonsense. Have your facts and data and don't be shy. Bob Wilson
If that's the same bill as last year, then the text you quoted is an incorrect summary. The bill didn't require DOT to study it, it required DOT to implement some fix, and leaned really heavily toward noisemakers on cars. If the bill had only required a study, I would have no problem with that. The problem is that the bill requires the Secretary of DOT to mandate noisemakers (or alternative) starting 2012 or so. The prior bill specifically did not allow DOT to study the issue and conclude that there's no particular problem from low-noise vehicles. It only allowed DOT to determine which solution (noisemaker or other) shall be mandated. As of 10 EST 1/29/09 the text of the bill had not yet been posted on Thomas (THOMAS (Library of Congress)).
I'm with you on this but all we have to go on are the 'press releases' and they are written as if a solution must be mandated. We do have to wait for the official record. What bothered me at the June 23 hearing was when I brought up the issue of HR 5734, the NHTSA 'moderator', Ronald Milford (aka., 1/23/09 listed as 'acting director') told me, "Don't worry about it. There is first a study." Curiously, the words "Don't worry about it" did not show up in the transcript. Of course this must have been just another innocent mistake by the clumsy transcript service just like leaving out one of the NHTSA PowerPoint charts. The missing PowerPoint chart showed the NHTSA had found no evidence of a hybrid risk. That missing page was presented at the FOIA meeting but failed to show up in the official record. Amazing, simply amazing. Bob Wilson
