2012 VSP Off switch gone?

[sckayak]

Just curious, do any of you who are trying so hard to turn off the VPS switch ever worry about the consequences of hitting someone with it intentionally turned off? Why do you think Nissian removed the switch? The liability for any reverse or slow speed pedestrian accident with it turned off is unimaginable.......and the punitive costs uncalculatable. You would loose everything you own!

<snip>If you decide to walk into the road (or parking lot), it is your responsibility to "look" around to make sure a vehicle is not coming toward you before you walk into the path of a vehicle. Surely you don't walk into the path of a vehicle without looking both ways? <snip>

The VSP is there to warn "visually-impaired and other pedestrians". How precisely is the former group supposed to 'look around'?

And to reply to absasile, while the small number of EVs currently on the road may not be a problem, what happens when the numbers increase and it does become a significant problem?

What is a "visually impaired" person doing in the road in the first place? By the time the "visually impaired" person hears a car it will be too late anyway.

 

[TomT]

All other questions and considerations aside - and I think the whole VSP concept borders on the ludicrous - good luck to any lawyer that might like to try going down that legal road and PROVING it was intentionally off...

Just curious, do any of you who are trying so hard to turn off the VPS switch ever worry about the consequences of hitting someone with it intentionally turned off? Why do you think Nissian removed the switch? The liability for any reverse or slow speed pedestrian accident with it turned off is unimaginable.......and the punitive costs uncalculatable.

 

[davewill]

All other questions and considerations aside - and I think the whole VSP concept borders on the ludicrous - good luck to any lawyer that might like to try going down that legal road and PROVING it was intentionally off...

Won't be hard if the car had to be modified to allow it.

 

[TomT]

Yes it will because one would still need to prove that it was actually off and intentional at the time of the incident. Plus, one could easily remove the modification after the fact if one REALLY wanted to play that game...

As I said, I find the entire VSP concept flawed and ludicrous.

All other questions and considerations aside - and I think the whole VSP concept borders on the ludicrous - good luck to any lawyer that might like to try going down that legal road and PROVING it was intentionally off...

Won't be hard if the car had to be modified to allow it.

 

[garygid]

There seems to be no accident/fatality statistics evidence that an EV is a danger to a properly-cautious vision-impaired pedestrian.

So, how many vision-impaired people (acting properly, not just running out into the street) are hit by any kind of car?

How many of those vehicles were EVs?

In those cases, how many times was the ambient noise level sufficiently low that a VPS could have been heard or destinguished?

 

[wolfkin73]

My 2 cents? I don't think the VSP will protect me from any liability. So I hope to put a switch in my 2012 when I get it and mod it so I can turn it on if I want. I assume liability just getting out of bed in the morning.

 

[Coffee_Slurry]

Well, first off, learn to spell "Nissan", "incalculable", and correctly use the term "loose" (in this context it should be written as "lose").
...
So, your statement is a mute-point.

That's "moot" point. Look it up.
:ugeek:

 

[tps]

So, your statement is a mute-point.

That's "moot" point. Look it up.
:ugeek:

I guess it depends on whether or not the point of his statement can talk or not...

 

[garsh]

So, your statement is a mute-point.

That's "moot" point. Look it up.

Nah, it's a "moo" point.

 

[sckayak]

Well, first off, learn to spell "Nissan", "incalculable", and correctly use the term "loose" (in this context it should be written as "lose").
...
So, your statement is a mute-point.

That's "moot" point. Look it up.
:ugeek:

Hey, I guess you learnt me sumpin today.

 

[Nubo]

It's a tempest in a tea cup, imho. I don't find the sound obtrusive; if anything it adds to the futuristic character of the car. Jetsons, FTW.

Aside from the visually impaired I can think of any number of situations where it might help prevent an injury or worse. Pedestrians and autos mix all the time. Anytime I arrive by car I end up transitioning from motorist to pedestrian.

So whether it's visual impairment or simply pedestrians who are inattentive, I think VSP's a great idea. And I don't particularly care what the reason for the inattentiveness is. Yes, one should be aware of their surroundings and not put themselves in harm's way. But I really don't feel any urge whatsoever to run over them with my car should they fail to heed that advice. And if that mild sound should prevent an incident, I'd be glad of it.

 

[jimcmorr]

<FWIW...> <IMHO...>

I always figured it was my own responsibility as driver of a motor vehicle to keep watch and avoid contact with pedestrians and other physical objects while driving.

Any noise the vehicle I am driving might make, will most likely not be heard (ear buds and MP3 player or cell phone) or just plain ignored by pedestrians, blind or not. I have followed people walking in the driving lane at WalMart with my car and they make absolutely no effort to get out of the way and give no sign at all of realizing they are in my travel lane taking their time.

And what about deaf people? Any noise my vehicle might make will not be heard by them either.

And what if the vehicle I am driving (riding) happens to be a bicycle? There is no noise made by a bicycle artificial or natural, so I have to be watching out for people there too.

I think that requiring a vehicle to make a noise of at least a specified decible level by law, is not reasonable and if such legislation should pass it should be for all vehicles, both person powered as well as motor powered so that would include skate boards, roller blades and bicycles as well as very quiet ICE and electric powered vehicles.

If electric vehicles are singled out, it is simply descrimination and quite possibly attempted market manipulation.

</IMHO...> </FWIW...>

I feel better now. Thanks!

 

[GRA]

The VSP is there to warn "visually-impaired and other pedestrians". How precisely is the former group supposed to 'look around'?

And to reply to absasile, while the small number of EVs currently on the road may not be a problem, what happens when the numbers increase and it does become a significant problem?

What is a "visually impaired" person doing in the road in the first place? By the time the "visually impaired" person hears a car it will be too late anyway.

Hopefully, using the crosswalk. FWIW, I found this on the web:

12 Do electric and hybrid vehicles represent a problem for pedestrians because of their quiet motors?

A vehicle's sound helps pedestrians, especially those who are visually impaired, detect a vehicle's presence and movements. Electric and hybrid electric vehicles emit less sound than vehicles with combustion engines when powered solely by electricity. A government study* examined the crashes of hybrid vehicles and similar nonhybrid vehicles and found that the percent of crashes involving pedestrians was 40 percent higher for hybrids than for nonhybrids. The likelihood of crashing with a pedestrian was 50 percent higher for hybrids than for nonhybrids in areas where speed limits were 35 mph or slower. When performing certain maneuvers, including slowing, stopping, and backing up, hybrid vehicles were more than twice as likely to be involved in a crash with a pedestrian compared with nonhybrid vehicles. These maneuvers typically occur at very low speeds when hybrids operate mostly on electric power.25

In 2011, Congress gave the Department of Transportation three years to come up with a requirement for equipping quiet vehicles with sounds to warn pedestrians about a vehicle's approach. Once the final rule is issued, manufacturers will have three years to fully comply. Some manufacturers have already added noise voluntarily. For example, the electric Nissan Leaf produces an airplane-like whooshing sound at low speeds.
--------------------------------------------------

Full page linked here:

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

* I think this is the study referred to above:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[lpickup]

I think that requiring a vehicle to make a noise of at least a specified decible level by law, is not reasonable and if such legislation should pass it should be for all vehicles, both person powered as well as motor powered so that would include skate boards, roller blades and bicycles as well as very quiet ICE and electric powered vehicles.

The principle of this is fine, but let's face it, we are talking about a 3000 pound or so vehicle, not a skateboard. If someone doesn't hear you coming and steps out into traffic (even if they are technically in the wrong) and is seriously hurt, that's just pointless.

Really people, it's not that big a deal that your car isn't 100% stealthy. Frankly I almost think it's louder inside the cabin than outside.

 

[jimcmorr]

I think that requiring a vehicle to make a noise of at least a specified decible level by law, is not reasonable and if such legislation should pass it should be for all vehicles, both person powered as well as motor powered so that would include skate boards, roller blades and bicycles as well as very quiet ICE and electric powered vehicles.

The principle of this is fine, but let's face it, we are talking about a 3000 pound or so vehicle, not a skateboard. If someone doesn't hear you coming and steps out into traffic (even if they are technically in the wrong) and is seriously hurt, that's just pointless.

Really people, it's not that big a deal that your car isn't 100% stealthy. Frankly I almost think it's louder inside the cabin than outside.

HAHAHA but you forgot to quote the part where I said it is my own responsibility to look out for things my vehicle could colide with...

I always figured it was my own responsibility as driver of a motor vehicle to keep watch and avoid contact with pedestrians and other physical objects while driving.

 

[lpickup]

HAHAHA but you forgot to quote the part where I said it is my own responsibility to look out for things my vehicle could colide with...

No, I definitely saw that, and in principle, I agree with you. But what I am saying is that even if someone is in the wrong and walks out in front of your car (or maybe a bicyclist pulls out in front of you) not giving you enough time to react, and they are clearly at fault, and they are seriously injured (or worse) then that is a senseless and avoidable tragedy. I just really fail to see why having a 100% silent vehicle is THAT important when for the past 100 years or so we've had cars that are certainly not silent.

Yes, it's very cool that EVs barely make any noise. I love giving people a ride or having them watch me drive off relatively silently. Believe me, even with the VSP it is damn impressive and people will get that this car is not running an engine. However I honestly do not understand why people such as yourself feel the need to defeat a piece of safety equipment, other than for the pure principle of the it. Maybe you can help me understand that.

 

[Nubo]

HAHAHA but you forgot to quote the part where I said it is my own responsibility to look out for things my vehicle could colide with...

If all parties are perfect and never suffer from a moment's inattention or distraction, then that will work. If there were no blind spots, it would work. If pedestrians didn't suddenly pop out from between parked cars it would work. If children didn't run out into the street after a ball, etc., etc...

Personally I'm not perfect and it's a complex, busy and complicated world. I'm the motorist who might not see everything. I'm the pedestrian who stepped on some gum, tried to check his shoe and didn't see the car in motion in the parking garage. I was the kid who went after the errant ball in the street without always looking because I "knew" I could hear the cars coming.... Who knows, one day I might be the blind guy relying on my hearing to know what's around me.

I'm glad the VSP is there helping things a bit. It won't reduce accidents to zero but I have no doubt that it will definitely save some pain suffering and death.

 

[Nekota]

Yes it will because one would still need to prove that it was actually off and intentional at the time of the incident. Plus, one could easily remove the modification after the fact if one REALLY wanted to play that game...

As I said, I find the entire VSP concept flawed and ludicrous.

All other questions and considerations aside - and I think the whole VSP concept borders on the ludicrous - good luck to any lawyer that might like to try going down that legal road and PROVING it was intentionally off...

Won't be hard if the car had to be modified to allow it.

I don't know if anything has to be proved to a jury of your peers. All a lawyer has to do is establish a sense of arrogance, irresponsibility, or raise doubt the other side is telling the truth or is covering something up. At any rate I think it's overstated just like the OK button and now the VSP button - much like vacuum science - much ado about nothing. :lol:

see http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2006/09/book_review_a_tort_protectors.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[SierraQ]

The core issue is not that the VSP exists--I think it is a useful feature if only until the point where EVs are more wide spread and people are used to silent things roaming the streets. The core issue is the government telling us whether or not we can be in charge of it. The government has a disturbing tendency to over-protect us as if we were all babies. Thanks to them we now have safety paranoia everywhere and that in turn has led to all those lawsuits whenever someone can convince a jury that something wasn't safe enough. Thank God the military doesn't have to deal with what we do else a soldier would have to agree to a nag screen and buckle their seatbelt and step on the brake just so their tank can get moving during a surprise attack. Oh and the turret would sound an artificial noise for a few minutes before it fired--just so no one got hurt.

 

[lpickup]

The core issue is the government telling us whether or not we can be in charge of it.

I suppose the principle of it is one thing. But why would anyone WANT to turn it off? That's what I don't get! It's a piece of safety equipment that to me doesn't make any sense TO turn off, so what's the big deal about not having a switch? It just seems like much ado about nothing.