IWG on Reversing Alarms Brigade Resistance to change IWG on Reversing Alarms Brigade

Introduction: Gentleman, there are millions of tonal beeping reversing alarms, these cannot be got rid of overnight, but the regulation needs to, and this group is directed by its terms of reference to, “have consideration to both safety and environment.” How can we write a regulation that endorses an unsafe warning signal? In 2008 I had my first major broadband alarm sales success. Following complaints of beepers, the Port of Houston Authority employed an acoustic consultancy to work with its safety department on the option to adopt broadband sound to replace beepers. 9 months later I was invited to the presentation by the consultancy and safety department to the Port of Houston Authority and other stake holders including union representatives. By way of introduction, the acoustic consultant said; Before we start, I want to make the point that, because we have two ears, we all think we are sound experts! The fact is, if an electronics engineer, acoustic expert and safety expert were asked to design the first reversing alarm, the one thing they would not have designed is the beeper which is acoustically deficient. Tonal beeps give false directional cues and are unsafe. They also cause noise complaints. With each new contract the Port mandated broadband reversing alarms; it probably cost them 5m US$ While acknowledging and not banning the millions of tonal beepers already in use, this standard needs to clearly point to a sound that is safe and eliminates noise complaints. Backing safety didn’t stop with the first bells fitted to wheels of mobile equipment, they didn’t stop with the piezo buzzer, why stop with tonal beepers?  

Introduction: Gentleman, there are millions of tonal beeping reversing alarms, these cannot be got rid of overnight, but the regulation needs to, and this group is directed by its terms of reference to, “have consideration to both safety and environment.” How can we write a regulation that endorses an unsafe warning signal? In 2008 I had my first major broadband alarm sales success. Following complaints of beepers, the Port of Houston Authority employed an acoustic consultancy to work with its safety department on the option to adopt broadband sound to replace beepers. 9 months later I was invited to the presentation by the consultancy and safety department to the Port of Houston Authority and other stake holders including union representatives. By way of introduction, the acoustic consultant said; Before we start, I want to make the point that, because we have two ears, we all think we are sound experts! The fact is, if an electronics engineer, acoustic expert and safety expert were asked to design the first reversing alarm, the one thing they would not have designed is the beeper which is acoustically deficient. Tonal beeps give false directional cues and are unsafe. They also cause noise complaints. With each new contract the Port mandated broadband reversing alarms; it probably cost them 5m US$ While acknowledging and not banning the millions of tonal beepers already in use, this standard needs to clearly point to a sound that is safe and eliminates noise complaints. Backing safety didn’t stop with the first bells fitted to wheels of mobile equipment, they didn’t stop with the piezo buzzer, why stop with tonal beepers?  

Introduction:

Resistance to Change: Objectives of the IWG Public Perception of reversing alarms Function of Reversing Alarms Tonal signals Performance requirements Current usage Safest countries

objective of the iwg…. Technical requirements for vehicles ….. ….. with consideration to both safety ….. and environment

Public Perception of Reversing alarms White Rabbit Project Series 1, Episode 7 – Tech we love to hate

Function of a reversing alarm To alert VRUs to the presence and location of a hazard Note; “Hazard”; exposure to danger. i.e. a person at immediate risk EG: REG58-QRTV-06-02; Fatal Accident Involving a Blind Person in Japan in October 2015; “devices that give warning to nearby pedestrians” QRTV Terms of Reference establishes four criteria: “…. the presence, direction, location, and operation of those vehicles.” The World Blind Union, QRTV: The AVAS sound must be detectable and locatable; The AVAS must be on while the vehicle is stationary; The GTR must require, not simply permit, the use of broadband; The sound level for the AVAS should be the same as the sound level proposed in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); and The GTR must prohibit a driver controlled on/off or pause switch.

Tonal Signals: Annoy: Mis-inform: Reduce effectiveness: Penetrate painfully like stiletto heels Travel too far, disturbing needlessly Need much higher SPL (10+ dBA?) to be equally audible/detectable Mis-inform: Give false directional cues – very dangerous indeed They are unsafe and unfit for purpose Reduce effectiveness: Get ignored due to irrelevant and un-needed warnings

Performance Requirements: For safe reversing alarm, the signal must: Alert listener to a hazard & Locate the hazard N.B. false alarms, i.e. audible outside the hazard zone, lead to alarms being ignored. Environment: The audible signal should be acceptable Be effective; heard only when needed, i.e.: in hazard zone The signal: Instantly sound-source locatable Minimal tonal content Minimal SPL to be effective

Current sales – BBS Year 2016 2017 2018 UK 37,167 37,492 46,514 Australia 13,747 20,024 21,392 Germany 4,826 6,251 9,526 New Zealand 3,740 5,127 8,902 France 3,037 5,249 8,758 Canada 792 2,231 4,168 Nederlands 1,965 3,104 3,864 Sweden 1,601 2,990 3,488 USA 528 1,488 976 Poland 231 342 778 Austria 436 569 616 Estonia 416 Norway 283 369 322 Finland 101 190 222 Ghana 200 Spain 249 139 176 Egypt 119 77 106 Denmark 113 76 100 Romania 40 Malta Lithuania 1 55 24

Fatalities (/a/100,000 workers) Relative Risk v Australia Safest Countries Data from Wikipedia for construction workers. Although data is for all accidents; it indicates attitude to safety Year 2016 2017 2018 UK 37,167 37,492 46,514 Australia 13,747 20,024 21,392 Germany 4,826 6,251 9,526 New Zealand 3,740 5,127 8,902 France 3,037 5,249 8,758 Canada 792 2,231 4,168 Nederlands 1,965 3,104 3,864 Sweden 1,601 2,990 3,488 USA 528 1,488 976 Poland 231 342 778 Austria 436 569 616 Estonia 416 Norway 283 369 322 Finland 101 190 222 Ghana 200 Spain 249 139 176 Egypt 119 77 106 Denmark 113 76 100 Romania 40 Malta Lithuania 1 55 24 Country/region Fatalities (/a/100,000 workers) Relative Risk v Australia Australia 1.5 1 United Kingdom 1.62 108% France 2.64 176% Norway 3.3 220% Switzerland 4.2 280% Germany 5 333% Sweden 5.8 387% Finland 5.9 393% Canada 8.7 580% Ireland 9.8 653% USA India 10 667% Israel 12.12 808% Europe 23 1533%