News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by yaeger on Thursday January 22, 2015 @03:04AM (#8928074)
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.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by vilhelm_s on Thursday January 22, 2015 @09:02AM (#8929138)
I mean, cyclists are not required by law to continuously ring the bell when traveling at less than 25mph though. Cars have car horns; that seems like a better analogy to bicycle bells than the "external noise generators".
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by aaronetz on Thursday January 22, 2015 @08:59AM (#8929127)
In a hypothetical future where all city vehicles are electric, tire noise would be much more noticeable (whereas now it is drowning in engine noise).
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by na85 on Thursday January 22, 2015 @03:22AM (#8928105)
Cars come equipped with horns for that exact purpose (alerting pedestrians, etc.), though they are often used as displeasure-signalling devices.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by pcthrowaway on Thursday January 22, 2015 @03:53AM (#8928185)
As a cyclist it's often helpful to be able to hear the sound made by cars moving across a street, for example, when approaching an intersection where perpendicular traffic should stop, but may not.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by ncza on Thursday January 22, 2015 @04:08AM (#8928236)
As a casual slow cyclist myself I already find it impossible to rely on audio too Mich, visuals are always needed. I have had several near collisions with other cyclists in the past who silently sneak up from behind or around corners. Afterwards I made sure to always look around before changing direction and treat every obscured corner as potential "devil puppet on a spring box" (no idea what they are called :) ).

I would love car traffic to be more silent but AFAIK the tires actually make most of the noise.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by pcthrowaway on Thursday January 22, 2015 @05:09AM (#8928398)
You're entirely right that we shouldn't rely on sensory input from our ears to drive or cycle. However, the fact of the matter is that many people use their hearing to supplement their other senses.

When I worked with deaf people as relay operator, a question asked by a coworker during our orientation session on deaf culture was 'How do deaf people drive if they can't hear sirens from emergency vehicles?' The answer is that they rely on their other input to and have learned to compensate for their lack of hearing. In effect they may be aware of these possibilities and check their rearviews more frequently to account for not being able to depend on auditory updates.

If all vehicles were completely silent, it would remove the benefit those of us with hearing gain from the additional input, even though this input isn't strictly speaking necessary. We could and would adapt, sure, but I think that additional factor when cycling does help in some situations. I can see engines making some noise to be advantageous, even if it only makes the difference of one fatality a year, because there is very little drawback.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by nitrogen on Thursday January 22, 2015 @04:39AM (#8928327)
"devil puppet on a spring box" (no idea what they are called :) ).

I believe this is what you mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack-in-the-box

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by arthurfm on Thursday January 22, 2015 @07:53AM (#8928879)
> I would love car traffic to be more silent

A minor nitpick, but you can't get more silent than silent since silence is the absence of any noise.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by pluma on Thursday January 22, 2015 @08:22AM (#8928976)
Sure, but absolutes are rarely used in their literal meaning.

"Silence" doesn't refer to the absence of any noise, it refers to a very low level of noise. The absence of any noise at all is very difficult to achieve (although you can come close: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXVGIb3bzHI). The same goes for other absolutes like "black" (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack is arguably "blacker" than other "black" materials).

You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but your point is moot. Very few words that describe absolutes can be used "correctly" in practice. The logical conclusion is that these words (despite their dictionary definition) don't refer to actual absolutes but rather extremes: silence is not the absence of noise, it's just the presence of a significantly smaller amount of noise.

Heck, even words like "pregnant" aren't absolute in practice. With "pregnant" the implication commonly is "will give birth" (which is why we have euphemisms like "expecting"), so someone who is nearly due can be said to be "more pregnant" simply because they are closer to giving birth (and therefore also have a higher chance of delivering successfully) whereas someone within their first months of pregnancy may often not even want to disclose their state because so many things can still go wrong.

In practice "silent" or "black" is no more absolute than "cold" -- and it would be silly to expect people to refer to zero kelvin when they say "cold", don't you think?

Disclosure: I spent way too much time around linguists as a student.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by arthurfm on Thursday January 22, 2015 @02:07PM (#8931015)
> silence is not the absence of noise, it's just the presence of a significantly smaller amount of noise.

Thanks for your explanation.

Considering that other animals can produce or hear sounds that humans can't, I guess I shouldn't have used the word 'any'? :)

When I think of silence I tend to think of passively cooled heatsinks or cases for PCs that do not produce any noise that I can hear (even up close). Compare that to a slow-spinning fan that can be effectively silent at a certain distance, but still produces an audible sound if you get really close.

> In practice "silent" or "black" is no more absolute than "cold" -- and it would be silly to expect people to refer to zero kelvin when they say "cold", don't you think?

You're right, although what one person thinks of as cold may not be what another person thinks of as cold. e.g. temperatures in winter in the UK vs Russia or the North Pole. It's all relative.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by ncza on Thursday January 22, 2015 @05:08PM (#8932091)
Thank you both very much for your comments. With English as a second language it is easy to never learn the true meaning of words. I feel quite stuck with my current level for several years already and tiny bits like these are great improvements. Cheers!
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by evincarofautumn on Thursday January 22, 2015 @08:45AM (#8929062)
On the other hand, logic has little to do with how language works. There are absolute and relative adjectives in English in the same way that there are count and non-count nouns, regardless of whether those semantic categories make any sense.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by pcthrowaway on Thursday January 22, 2015 @12:53PM (#8930535)
Damn, you couldn't have been any more on with that.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by eCa on Thursday January 22, 2015 @03:55AM (#8928193)
As a cyclist, it is much preferred to hear engine noice rather than honking horns.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by pwr22 on Thursday January 22, 2015 @04:17AM (#8928263)
Also as a pedestrian
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by grey-area on Thursday January 22, 2015 @10:55AM (#8929785)
I hope you've also fitted a noise-generator to your bike instead of the bell.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by Svip on Thursday January 22, 2015 @03:13AM (#8928087)
I was once almost hit by a Tesla, because I didn't hear it coming. Fortunately, the driver noticed I wasn't aware of his presence and slowed down.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by CalRobert on Thursday January 22, 2015 @05:22AM (#8928423)
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.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by firethief on Thursday January 22, 2015 @05:39AM (#8928463)
For a pedestrian hit by a car, legal liability is often not the main concern.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by jeza on Thursday January 22, 2015 @07:10AM (#8928723)
Though in some countries, hitting a pedestrian gets the driver an automatic jail term. Collisions with pedestrians don't happen all that often in such countries.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by troels on Thursday January 22, 2015 @08:19AM (#8928968)
I'd still rather be the driver in that scenario (Which I believe was the parent's point)
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by jeza on Thursday January 22, 2015 @07:01PM (#8932602)
I think I'd rather be neither.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by droopyEyelids on Thursday January 22, 2015 @09:14AM (#8929190)
I agree and I find that a far more civilized legal approach to cars, but I don't ever count on that happening in America.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by iamthepieman on Thursday January 22, 2015 @09:05AM (#8929156)
You may legally in the right but only your heirs will care.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by mikeash on Thursday January 22, 2015 @10:28AM (#8929616)
It's not the main concern for the pedestrian, but it may be for the driver. If legal liability is clearly on the driver then drivers will be more careful. At least, many will, even if not all.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by allendoerfer on Thursday January 22, 2015 @05:40AM (#8928466)
In the end it does not matter. The pedestrian is the one needing the wheelchair afterwards.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by rprospero on Thursday January 22, 2015 @06:34AM (#8928611)
On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, a friend of mine was sued by the driver of the car that hit him to pay for cleaning his blood off of the car and fixing the dent his body left in the frame.

It'd be nice if they didn't add insult to injury.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by Htsthbjig on Thursday January 22, 2015 @12:02PM (#8930216)
Well if your friend is the one responsible from the accident, then yes, he should be paying the car damages.

Sometimes it is pedestrian fault. I was nearly run over by a truck crossing the street trying not to miss a bus that took so long waiting.

It was entirely my fault had he killed me. Luckily I had good reflexes and jumped away, the truck hit my leg at over 100kms/hour while in the air and only made me a small bruise as it rotated in the air with little resistance.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by allendoerfer on Thursday January 22, 2015 @07:21AM (#8928754)
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.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by CalRobert on Thursday January 22, 2015 @01:44PM (#8930855)
Interestingly, Germany is also the most wonderful place I know for a drive. They're well-trained, considerate, and skilled.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by allendoerfer on Thursday January 22, 2015 @04:01PM (#8931727)
You get what you (let people) pay for. A drivers license costs ~1500€ here.
[deleted]
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by ctdonath on Thursday January 22, 2015 @09:26AM (#8929242)
Legendary radio exchange:

"I am the captain of battleship USS Awesomename! I demand you change your course!"

"I am the keeper of a lighthouse. Your call."

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by jarek on Thursday January 22, 2015 @03:23AM (#8928111)
At city speeds, tire noise exceeds engine noise in many internal-combustion vehicles as well.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by ptaipale on Thursday January 22, 2015 @06:11AM (#8928553)
At highway speeds it definitely does, but not necessarily at city speeds as the speed is low (and a stationary car makes no tyre noise but combustion engine still makes some engine noise).

This of course also depends on the road surface and tyres. Where I live we have rough asphalt (with large granite chips sticking out) and rought tyres, at least in the winter. The highway noise is practically all from tyres.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by jarek on Thursday January 22, 2015 @07:14AM (#8928732)
> but not necessarily at city speeds as the speed is low

No, but often enough for it to be a factor. As a pedestrian I don't assume I can hear an engine.

> (and a stationary car makes no tyre noise but combustion engine still makes some engine noise)

Unless you have a start-and-stop, and it's approaching insanity to require that stopped petrol cars have speakers that make engine noise if they turn off the engine.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by MarkMc on Thursday January 22, 2015 @10:55PM (#8933318)
I'm sure it won't be long until Google's self-driving car automatically sounds the horn when it detects an imminent collision with a pedestrian or car.
Re:The rise of fake engine noise by mabbo on Thursday January 22, 2015 @08:31AM (#8929006)
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.

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by Recoil42 on Thursday January 22, 2015 @10:13AM (#8929518)
>You know, deaf people have managed to survive by looking around before they step onto the road.

And what about blind people?

Re:The rise of fake engine noise by elektronjunge on Thursday January 22, 2015 @10:14AM (#8929520)
That's a great solution if your not blind. Or navigating somewhere with poor sight lines like a parking garage.