Nissan Gives Electric Cars Blade Runner Audio Effect

mateuscb writes "A campaign backed by automakers and some lawmakers to make electric or hybrid cars noisier in a bid to increase safety for pedestrians and cyclists has taken a strange, Blade Runner-type twist. Nissan sound engineers have announced that the Leaf electric car set for release next year will emit a 'beautiful and futuristic' noise similar to the sound of flying cars — or 'spinners' — that buzz around 2019 Los Angeles in Ridley Scott's dystopian thriller based on a Philip K. Dick science fiction novel."

Comments

But...

[e4g4]

...one of the nice things about electric cars is that they're so quiet. Can you turn the sound off?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd heard about these before, though not necessarily Nissan but this idea, and it's supposed to be forward-directed noise that's barely audible, if at all, in the cabin.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

If cars will make extra noise, then I want a tirebell for my bicycle. They are banned in Germany for noise pollution reasons. Bicycles are only allowed a measly 2.4W headlight, while cars use two 55W bulbs.

Re:But...

[Steve Franklin]

I used to drive a Mazda RX2, which was much quieter than the average car, and it was funny to drive up behind pedestrians walking down the middle of a side street or someone on a bicycle before they realized there was a car behind them. So, why didn't someone have this bright idea then? Could it be because these new quieter cars are electric?

Re:But...

[AvitarX]

More likely because they are main stream and in a growing market.

Re:But...

[icebike]

Some noise is needed, because pedestrians are so stupid.

So instead of taking the opportunity to quiet our cities, which are an absolute noise nightmare, we are going to legislate more noise. Can you imagine a stream of bumper to bumper traffic and the noise that would create?

Wouldn't it be easier for the blind or deaf to carry s little 360 degree Doppler radar which would squeal or vibrate when something is approaching faster then their gate?

Wouldn't that make more sense than making city environments more unpleasant for every one else?

You could fund this with gas/battery tax revenues. You could build it into mp3 players.

Such a device will work for cyclists as well as pedestrians.

Re:But...

[rantingkitten]

Even "legal" roadcrossings, ones that wouldn't be considered jaywalking, are problematic. In Atlanta, and many other cities to which I've been, there are two main types of crosswalks -- the ones at intersections with lights and all, which are generally fine, and the ones that aren't marked by anything more than a white stripe on the pavement.

THOSE are the ones that suck so much, because people will just blindly wander into the street full of moving cars, but because they're in their precious painted part of the pavement, we're all supposed to immediately come to a dead halt.

Why?

Why isn't it 100% the fault of the dumb ped that walks into traffic? Let me repeat that -- regardless of the law, or paint on the pavement, or anything else, crossing the road when cars are coming is walking into traffic. There aren't many dumber things a human can do.

That doesn't mean that drivers should be looking for people to run down, but I have seen way too many close-calls where soomeone almost gets hit. The pedestrian usually gets furious -- "I'm walkin' here! Right of way!" -- but has absolutely no right to be angry about almost being hit by a car when he chose to walk into a road full of moving cars.

The proper course of action is to wait until the cars have passed and then go. If a driver hits you, it won't help you that he's liable under the law when you're a smear on the pavement. So take some responsibility, stop assuming the law is a magic shield against physics, and wait for the cars to clear.

Strange world

[oldhack]

Funny world we live in. Car noise became so ubiquitous, we "need" them.

Re:Interesting job title

[Zak3056]

What exactly would these people do on a daily basis?

I would imagine they're normally responsible for minimizing road noise, engine noise heard inside the cabin, making the stereo sound good in the aurally hostile environment that is an automobile, etc.

Re:It's Not About Safety, It's About Macho

[nabsltd]

I always assumed there'd be other sources of noise, e.g. the tires - but that thing can be eerily quiet.

So can any modern, well-built small car from 100 feet away when travelling less than 12 mph.

Really, the noise is basically useless if you are less than about 40 feet away, as you probably won't be able to avoid the car by noise alone with less than 2 seconds notice. And, from 100 feet away, unless you are gliding in neutral and revving the engine, a car moving 12mph is basically silent.

Try it sometime...stand with your back to a car that starts 200 feet from you in a normally noisy parking lot, have it move towards you at 10-15mph, and then raise your hand when you identify the car by sound alone. I'll bet you identify a lot of other cars instead of the one heading towards you.

Alternatively

[Vahokif]

Why not make cars transmit a signal that can be picked up by nearby personal receivers for blind people? It'd eliminate noise pollution and everyone else could just look.

Re:Deaf people cope

[gmhowell]

And yet my ex-wife still can't do the world a favor by walking in front of a bus.

Downloadable

[PPH]

Like ringtones.

I mean, if Nissan dosn't catch a clue about this, it'll be hacked anyway.

When car drivers stop being selfish idiots

[fantomas]

Pedestrians must have a sense of responsibility. All road users should do. As a cyclist, I can tell you I am very passionate in my belief that car drivers also should have a sense of responsibility and alas a small minority do not, and drive like idiots (this is also true of cyclists).

If a person weighing 150lbs* bumps into me, I am happy enough to accept a spoken apology. Drivers of a ton of steel must take much more responsibility for their action as their mistakes KILL. I can tell you that a minority do not. When I lived in London I'd expect one near miss a week (as in possible hospitalisation) cycling to work and back in the city centre. Drivers turning without indicating and forcing me to hit the brakes/jump onto the pavement and possibly endanger pedestrians, drivers opening their car doors into the traffic a couple of metres ahead of me without checking for traffic, parked cars pulling out without checking their mirrors. Nearly been hit by them all.

You are very right, people should behave responsibly on the road, and those people driving larger vehicles definitely must be extra careful.

* As an aside my friend, lighten up and love yourself a bit more. "150 fleshbag" - what a terrible expression! Human bodies are fine engineering and beautiful things. Love yourself a little more. Get out and do some walking, cycle, rock climb, enjoy that body! It's what you've got to live in so love it, enjoy it, use it to the limit, don't despite it :-)

The "bladerunner" sound is cool but a bad idea

[XNormal]

The sound should be as un-musical and as noiselike as possible. White noise and impulses are much easier to localize. It is almost impossible to identify the direction from which a narrowband signal is coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdmPouNLTlU

Ok, but... the economics are backwards

[name_already_taken]

Try being blind and then guessing when it's safe to cross the road...

I've read the articles where the blind people are freaked out by hybrid cars that they can't hear (when the car pulls away from a stop, for example). We can all understand why we want blind people to know there is a moving vehicle near them.

The thing is, simple economics dictates that it would make far more sense to equip the blind people with car proximity sensors of some kind, rather than make every car noisy.

There are far fewer blind people than cars. We can reasonably assume that in the future there will be many more hybrid or electric cars which produce little to no sound at low speeds.

Imagine the benefit of having areas free from engine noise - why artificially make every car noisy just for the safety of a very small portion of the population who can't see them?

It'd be easy enough to equip every car with something that produces ultrasonic sound or low power radio waves, and give blind people a device they can wear that will detect the car proximity signal and indicate to the blind person (perhaps by vibration) where nearby cars are.

Re:Ok, but... the economics are backwards

[Mr. Slippery]

The thing is, simple economics dictates that it would make far more sense to equip the blind people with car proximity sensors of some kind, rather than make every car noisy.

Which just goes to show you that "simple" economics doesn't apply to the real world.

We have a cheap robust solution for putting noisemakers on cars. We don't have any effective solution for equipping the blind with movement detectors, and solution for giving them some sort of gizmos would be less robust -- those would be subject to being lost, whereas it would be amazingly rare for a noisemaker to fall off a car.

Adding a noisemaker to cars would also benefit distracted pedestrians and young children, as well as preventing accidents with animals. If it helps prevent Distracted Dave or Little Bobby or Fido from getting run over, or keeps you from plowing into a deer, that's a benefit that woudn't accrue to giving motion detectors to the blind. (Many people already add "deer whistles" to their vehicles, though evidence for their effectiveness is spotty: see here and here. The study at the second link is interesting, but the test group using the whistles was self-selected and probably represented more cautious drivers.)