First mods from new PHEV driver

[greendwarf]

In the UK it is not a legal requirement yet but will be later this year, apparently. AFAIK EV cabs in London don't have it! I also can understand why it should be such a "nuisance". :roll:

 

[jaapv]

Can or can't?
Even if it is not a legal requirement yet, it surely is a moral requirement. And I can imagine a civil case in which it is argued that deliberately disabling a safety feature has contributed to causing an accident.

 

[Thrasher]

When are they going to fit cyclists with such devices?

 

[michael8554]

In the UK a bell is a legal requirement.......

A car has a horn, but tooting can be misconstrued, the sound from the PHEV won't.

And it's not there all the time, only when driving slowly.

 

[Thrasher]

Hi,

While it might be a legal requirement - not many of the Lycra clad "the rules of the road don't apply to me" brigade have them. I think the risk of being hit by a speeding cyclist is higher than a large car which is *easier* to see. This whole nanny state thing is getting bonkers tbh.

 

[ThudnBlundr]

When are they going to fit cyclists with such devices?

While it might be a legal requirement - not many of the Lycra clad "the rules of the road don't apply to me" brigade have them. I think the risk of being hit by a speeding cyclist is higher than a large car which is *easier* to see. This whole nanny state thing is getting bonkers tbh.

Seriously? :roll: A cyclist hitting you at 15mph isn't going to kill you and is likely to cause little more than superficial cuts and bruises. A cyclist has a voice which is far louder than a bell. :roll: A 2-ton PHEV hitting you at 15mph can cause serious damage or death. Which do you think is safer? :roll:

And who needs a "nanny state"? All those vulnerable people for whom this is designed don't need protecting. If we remove these rules and more of them die, it's obviously no concern of ours. :roll:

Selfish and stupid! :twisted:

 

[user 3575]

I have been on a touring caravan site, I use 2 hearing aid and a mobility walker, I did not have my hearing aids in at the time I stop and look back there was a Hybrid behind me, I never knew they were there, the driver sensible did not blast their horn to startle me but waited patiently. I for one would welcome hybrids to have an audible warning device.

 

[Thrasher]

When are they going to fit cyclists with such devices?

While it might be a legal requirement - not many of the Lycra clad "the rules of the road don't apply to me" brigade have them. I think the risk of being hit by a speeding cyclist is higher than a large car which is *easier* to see. This whole nanny state thing is getting bonkers tbh.

Seriously? :roll: A cyclist hitting you at 15mph isn't going to kill you and is likely to cause little more than superficial cuts and bruises. A cyclist has a voice which is far louder than a bell. :roll: A 2-ton PHEV hitting you at 15mph can cause serious damage or death. Which do you think is safer? :roll:

And who needs a "nanny state"? All those vulnerable people for whom this is designed don't need protecting. If we remove these rules and more of them die, it's obviously no concern of ours. :roll:

Selfish and stupid! :twisted:

So ... no-one has EYES any more is that what you are saying. LOOK LEFT, LOOK RIGHT - THEN CROSS WHEN SAFE. A cyclist hitting you at 15mph will do more damage than a car at 15mph. A cyclist doesn't have any impact safety or anything to assist in the event of a crash - trust me I have seen the damage a cyclist can do - my brother still bears the scars and missing teeth thanks to a cyclist running him over on a footpath.

Anyway - I think you are missing some of the posts in this thread, because if you had actually read them properly instead of deciding to insult my intelligence you will have seen I am willing to RETROFIT it in my UK spec model.

 

[DibbyDibbyDJ]

Aren't you repeating what I said?? I think we are on the same page regarding Beepophobia.
I think it is criminally stupid to disable it and the OP will regret it for the rest of his life should he happen to kill or invalid somebody this way. Quite apart from the legal consequences.

We are, Sorry, cut and paste error on quote.

 

[greendwarf]

Just to throw in my pennyworth - cyclists do kill pedestrians but rarely. I think the problem is not when crossing the road but in our crowded cities where pedestrians are used to relying on vehicle noise and often side step off the pavement with their backs to the traffic and yes they get hit by cyclists. I'll take my chance with a cyclist but with a car I don't want to. EV buses in London are being retro fitted with audible waring precisely to address this issue.

 

[ThudnBlundr]

So ... no-one has EYES any more is that what you are saying. LOOK LEFT, LOOK RIGHT - THEN CROSS WHEN SAFE.

The whole point of these devices is for vulnerable people who are partially-sighted or blind. So no, they don't have eyes (that work) and no amount of shouty capital letters will make them work. You really don't get it, do you? :roll:

And anyone who would rather be hit by 2,000kg of PHEV than 80kg of cyclist and bike needs their head examining. Conservation of energy and momentum shows what the difference is :roll:

 

[Thrasher]

So ... no-one has EYES any more is that what you are saying. LOOK LEFT, LOOK RIGHT - THEN CROSS WHEN SAFE.

The whole point of these devices is for vulnerable people who are partially-sighted or blind. So no, they don't have eyes (that work) and no amount of shouty capital letters will make them work. You really don't get it, do you? :roll:

And anyone who would rather be hit by 2,000kg of PHEV than 80kg of cyclist and bike needs their head examining. Conservation of energy and momentum shows what the difference is :roll:

If you are partially sighted or blind then you cross at a crossing which has alerts to let you know it is safe to cross. If you are talking about walking down country lanes - you walk towards traffic. The number of idiots I see walking with their back to traffic astounds me.

If you looked into car safety and crash testing you would see how important the design is regarding hitting pedestrians and the spread of the impact over as flat a surface as possible. With a bicycle the impact point is narrow and cannot spread the force. You get the full whack at the pointy end - trust me it hurts more.

Anyway, it would appear you ignored the other point, so I guess you just enjoy trolling

Enjoy your day - I know I will.

 

[user 3575]

I have a brain injury, if I am driving or riding on my mobility scooter I am fine, if I have to use my mobility walker or crutches all of my concentration is focus on being able to walk ( you be surprised how much mental energy this requires) I am there unable to concentrate on both hybrid vehicles, electric cars or other electric devises like mobility scooters or wheel chairs.

To add I also have a problem with cyclist riding to close to me, the electric cycles I can hear the whine from the electric motor, I also under the impression SUV vehicles are not required to meet some of the pedestrian safety standard as normal cars (my brain injury effects my grammar).

In short all electric vehicles, cycles in my opinion should be with warning devices.

 

[user 3575]

If you are partially sighted or blind then you cross at a crossing which has alerts to let you know it is safe to cross. If you are talking about walking down country lanes - you walk towards traffic. The number of idiots I see walking with their back to traffic astounds me.

Were I live we do not have any crossing were it alerts you when it safe to cross, plus some of our lanes are very narrow so I must be an idiot then.

 

[Thrasher]

plus some of our lanes are very narrow so I must be an idiot then

Do you walk towards oncoming traffic? It doesn't matter how narrow the lanes, cars should always stick to their side of the road. If you walk on the right hand side of the road with your back permanently towards traffic you are doing yourself no favours. It's basic highway code.

I suppose you think I live in a built up city with super wide roads and crossings every 5 metres. I don't. My commute to work takes me through a farmyard so I am very familiar with "narrow" lanes.

 

[Thrasher]

I also under the impression SUV vehicles are not required to meet some of the pedestrian safety standard as normal cars

Incorrect assumption. All vehicles have to pass the same tests. In fact it's even more stringent on SUV's due to some of them being higher than standard cars.

 

[user 3575]

plus some of our lanes are very narrow so I must be an idiot then

Do you walk towards oncoming traffic? It doesn't matter how narrow the lanes, cars should always stick to their side of the road. If you walk on the right hand side of the road with your back permanently towards traffic you are doing yourself no favours. It's basic highway code.

I suppose you think I live in a built up city with super wide roads and crossings every 5 metres. I don't. My commute to work takes me through a farmyard so I am very familiar with "narrow" lanes.

I sorry I don't think you listen to anyone but yourself and are building yourself a bit of a reputation

 

[ThudnBlundr]

I sorry I don't think you listen to anyone but yourself and are building yourself a bit of a reputation

Indeed he is

The OP disconnected his, which is why this conversation started. It's not all about one person, you know.