I'm Not One To Advocate Regulatory Legislation, But I Called This One

I noted awhile back that hybrid vehicles, for all of their benefits, present a peculiar danger to the public. They are silent when running at parking lot speed. Golf carts are noisier.

It is not a trivial point that golf carts also emit a high-decibel screech or beep when in reverse. This is obviously to warn nearby duffers of the presence of an electric vehicle being driven by someone who is potentially more likely to fail to see hazards behind the vehicle (particularly if it is late in the round and the beer cart has been by a few times, but that's a different issue). There is a clear and long-established understanding that electric vehicles, particularly when driven in reverse (impairing the driver's ability to see), present a danger to those in the immediate vicinity.

Hybrid automobiles, thanks to their refined engineering, are very, very quiet when in electric-only mode. I have been suprised by a hybrid in more than one parking lot over the last few years. The California state legislature apparently shares my concern that a 3000 lb. vehicle running silent, even at parking lot speeds, represents a potential for serious injury for pedestrians. The elected officials in Sacramento have passed a bill to require hybrids to make more noise.

As with all legislation or ballot proposals, it pays to actually read the law to understand its true scope and effect. The bill does not require Toyota to put baseball cards in its Prius's spokes. Instead, Senate Bill 1174 will establish a commission to convene a "Quiet Motorized Road Vehicle and Safe Mobility Committee" made up of representatives from vehicle manufacturers, the blind or visually impaired pedestrian community, the insurance industry, vehicle research entities, and law enforcement organizations. The committee is to study the stimuli needed by visually impaired persons to accurately detect the location and speed of an automobile, as well as determine the feasibility of adapting current vehicular avoidance systems for use by visually impaired pedestrians to detect approaching automobiles. The committee is to present its findings on or before January 1, 2010, and will then disband.

I am generally not in favor of burdening industries with regulations that force an outcome without an understanding of how that outcome might be achieved. However, this committee does not impose a direct cost on automakers (which would then be passed on to consumers). In the meantime, I would hope that automakers, which are in the best position to understand their own products and their dynamics, take note of this legislation and create a cost-effective solution to what could be a real problem before it is imposed upon them (and us) by our often foolish citizen-lawmakers.