New electric cars sold in Europe must be fitted with noise-making device

midian182

Posts: 5,866   +48
Staff member

The EU rule, which came into force today, states that all new types of four-wheeled electric vehicles must be fitted with an Acoustic Vehicle Alert System, or AVAS, which makes a noise like a standard engine when the vehicle drops below 12mph. You can hear it yourself in the clip below.

The BBC reports that while the charity Guide Dogs welcomed the change, it said the vehicles should make sounds at all speeds.

"This new requirement will give pedestrians added confidence when crossing the road," said the UK’s Roads Minister, Michael Ellis.

The noise-makers activate at 12mph and lower because the EU says cars are most likely to be near pedestrians when driving slowly or backing up. Interestingly, drivers will be able to deactivate the devices if they believe it is necessary.

From 2021, all new electric cars must include the noisemakers, not just new models. It’s thought that EVs already on the roads will be retrofitted with the devices.

Back in 2017, the UK announced that it would be following the lead of several other European nations by banning the sale of fossil fuel-powered vehicles as a way of dealing with airborne pollution. The plan is set to come into effect from 2040.

Permalink to story.

 

Uncle Al

Posts: 7,210   +5,595
I prefer the sound of a bodacious rouge elephant breaking wind every few seconds ...... or a hummingbird ..... decisions, decisions, decisions .......
 

Emexrulsier

Posts: 614   +87
With all the tech in cars, we could have come up with a better idea that a bloody stupid artificial noise making device.
 

ForgottenLegion

Posts: 456   +450
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.

Prices rising. Famine. Expensive housing. Resources being stretched...

Save more people. Makes zero sense.
Make up your mind. Is the world over populated or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dyson Parkes

Fearghast

Posts: 262   +171
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.

Prices rising. Famine. Expensive housing. Resources being stretched...

Save more people. Makes zero sense.
Make up your mind. Is the world over populated or not?
Too bad we still use gas and electricity to power cars. Imagine we turned human stupidity into a power source, that is what I call unlimited power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dyson Parkes

IAMTHESTIG

Posts: 1,868   +900
Really?

Just make it sound like the Jetson's flying cars... everyone knows what that is, it sounds cool, and it's alerting.

Or, all these cars could just drive around with studded tires. Hah!
 
  • Like
Reactions: stewi0001

netman

Posts: 530   +181
This is not going to reduce deaths in electric car accidents since hitting a person at speed of 12 mph or less may result in injuries, but almost certainly not death...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravey

OutlawCecil

Posts: 737   +562
Pretty sure I read that as of September 2019, here in the US, electric/hybrid cars going less than 18 have to make a sound. Our new Rav4 has an "angels singing" kinda sound mainly when backing up. This explains it! I kinda wish all manufacturers would agree on a sound/tone. It's just going to be weird having tons of random sound effects from cars.
 

Capaill

Posts: 1,200   +737
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.
Yes, all those blind people deserve to be killed by motor vehicles for being such failures!

I've been saying this for a year, although admittedly to nobody important: being able to hear a motor vehicle is vital for pedestrians and cyclists. It's bad enough that the electric vehicles are near silent. Combine that with massive acceleration and there's going to be carnage on the roads.

Even for a normal driver, imagine you're entering a junction or roundabout where you can pull out if the approaching traffic is stopped. You look and check and see nothing moving, so you pull out. And an electric car ploughs into you because his lights went green and he accelerated from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds in absolute silence. He'd probably blame you for pulling out in front of him!
Now imagine you're a pedestrian out for a stroll on a country lane with no footpaths. Normally you'd step in if you heard a vehicle approaching, especially if vehicles came from both directions. But with silent electric vehicles, the pedestrian has no chance.

I think the wheels of all electric vehicles should make noise when they are moving. At all speeds. The cars can have sound-proofing so the occupants don't hear the noise. But it's essential that they make noise. Vehicles share the roads with pedestrians and cyclists. They need to share the responsibility as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Godel and mcborge

Evernessince

Posts: 5,181   +5,511
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.

Prices rising. Famine. Expensive housing. Resources being stretched...

Save more people. Makes zero sense.
Make up your mind. Is the world over populated or not?
You misunderstand Darwin. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean killing off stupidity or those who are not strong, it means survival of those that best fit into the ecosystem. There are plenty of creatures on this planet who are by no means strong yet they serve an important role, that is what Darwin was alluding to.
 

Dyson Parkes

Posts: 49   +34
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.

Prices rising. Famine. Expensive housing. Resources being stretched...

Save more people. Makes zero sense.
Make up your mind. Is the world over populated or not?
You misunderstand Darwin. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean killing off stupidity or those who are not strong, it means survival of those that best fit into the ecosystem. There are plenty of creatures on this planet who are by no means strong yet they serve an important role, that is what Darwin was alluding to.
This is easily the most well-worded rebuttal of this argument that I've seen.
That said; while there is a place for the weaker members of the species (both physically and mentally), that's not to say that we should be making everything safer exclusively for their benefit.
The risk of injury encourages paying more attention. Failures teach how not to do things. Making everything 'safe' only serves to produce more *****s, because we're preventing the ecosystem from killing them off. We're making the ecosystem fit them rather than them fit the ecosystem (as you put it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosu

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,466   +1,438
TechSpot Elite
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.

Prices rising. Famine. Expensive housing. Resources being stretched...

Save more people. Makes zero sense.
Make up your mind. Is the world over populated or not?
You misunderstand Darwin. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean killing off stupidity or those who are not strong, it means survival of those that best fit into the ecosystem. There are plenty of creatures on this planet who are by no means strong yet they serve an important role, that is what Darwin was alluding to.
This is easily the most well-worded rebuttal of this argument that I've seen.
That said; while there is a place for the weaker members of the species (both physically and mentally), that's not to say that we should be making everything safer exclusively for their benefit.
The risk of injury encourages paying more attention. Failures teach how not to do things. Making everything 'safe' only serves to produce more *****s, because we're preventing the ecosystem from killing them off. We're making the ecosystem fit them rather than them fit the ecosystem (as you put it).
This is true. And the point of doing things that way is to demonstrate that we are more than base animals. That we see the value in human life and self-awareness, and that protecting other human beings, even the most imperfect ones, is the morally correct thing to do.

Conceptually, you could start with taking the culling of "imperfect" people to it's extreme: genocide of a type of person you find objectionable (Hollywood moguls, sports heroes, leftys, political leftys, the list is endless!). This of course is reprehensible, so then maybe someone can tell me how far back from that extreme they feel comfortable in drawing the arbitrary line of "these people shouldn't be protected." No matter where you draw that line, it continues to be arbitrary.

Morally speaking, then you protect all human beings. Following on, there are a lot of people who don't stop there and add animals to that list. Problem with that is animals taste too good. OK, and they're not self-aware.
 

Dyson Parkes

Posts: 49   +34
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.

Prices rising. Famine. Expensive housing. Resources being stretched...

Save more people. Makes zero sense.
Make up your mind. Is the world over populated or not?
You misunderstand Darwin. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean killing off stupidity or those who are not strong, it means survival of those that best fit into the ecosystem. There are plenty of creatures on this planet who are by no means strong yet they serve an important role, that is what Darwin was alluding to.
This is easily the most well-worded rebuttal of this argument that I've seen.
That said; while there is a place for the weaker members of the species (both physically and mentally), that's not to say that we should be making everything safer exclusively for their benefit.
The risk of injury encourages paying more attention. Failures teach how not to do things. Making everything 'safe' only serves to produce more *****s, because we're preventing the ecosystem from killing them off. We're making the ecosystem fit them rather than them fit the ecosystem (as you put it).
Nanny state at it's finest. Darwin would be ashamed.

Prices rising. Famine. Expensive housing. Resources being stretched...

Save more people. Makes zero sense.
Make up your mind. Is the world over populated or not?
You misunderstand Darwin. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean killing off stupidity or those who are not strong, it means survival of those that best fit into the ecosystem. There are plenty of creatures on this planet who are by no means strong yet they serve an important role, that is what Darwin was alluding to.
This is easily the most well-worded rebuttal of this argument that I've seen.
That said; while there is a place for the weaker members of the species (both physically and mentally), that's not to say that we should be making everything safer exclusively for their benefit.
The risk of injury encourages paying more attention. Failures teach how not to do things. Making everything 'safe' only serves to produce more *****s, because we're preventing the ecosystem from killing them off. We're making the ecosystem fit them rather than them fit the ecosystem (as you put it).
This is true. And the point of doing things that way is to demonstrate that we are more than base animals. That we see the value in human life and self-awareness, and that protecting other human beings, even the most imperfect ones, is the morally correct thing to do.

Conceptually, you could start with taking the culling of "imperfect" people to it's extreme: genocide of a type of person you find objectionable (Hollywood moguls, sports heroes, leftys, political leftys, the list is endless!). This of course is reprehensible, so then maybe someone can tell me how far back from that extreme they feel comfortable in drawing the arbitrary line of "these people shouldn't be protected." No matter where you draw that line, it continues to be arbitrary.

Morally speaking, then you protect all human beings. Following on, there are a lot of people who don't stop there and add animals to that list. Problem with that is animals taste too good. OK, and they're not self-aware.
As you put it, we're not base animals. Therefore it stands to reason that we are capable of not taking things to extremes.
Allowing nature to run its course through some people being run over because they're too lazy to look both ways instead of just listening for vehicles is most definitely not the same as culling them. A cull is a targeted killing of many things at once (for example - goats and pest control).

Implying that simply not preventing someone dying for ignoring common sense (aka not thinking for themselves) is the same as deliberately murdering them is extremist in itself.

As for me killing people I find objectionable - that's a metric measured by me, so not impartial. Someone not thinking for themselves and getting themselves killed because we're not dumbing things down to protect them? That's on them.
If you have a peanut allergy, don't eat peanut butter. The jar shouldn't have to say "contains peanuts", that's moronic.