Silence is golden -- and green
Columnist Jay Michaelson wonders if we stand a chance against consumer advocates lobbying for the installation of noise-making machines in quiet hybrid cars.
Mon, Nov 09 2009 at 5:08 AM EST
10
THE QUIET GAME: For this writer, the quiet hum of a hybrid car is almost as impressive as the gas mileage. (Photo: CurvaBezier/iStockPhoto) The good news, and the bad news, both circulated recently. The good news: Hybrid cars are so much quieter than ordinary ones, and becoming so prevalent, that the long-hoped-for dream of less automotive noise pollution is actually becoming a reality. The bad news? Consumer advocates are already agitating for noise-making machines to be installed in these vehicles, and car companies are researching them.
Hold on a sec. I remember learning in the 1970s that "noise pollution" was one of the evils of industrial society. Cacophonous city streets, the alienating whirr of interstate highways — and who hasn't had a pleasant day of fishing or hiking ruined by the buzz of cars on a nearby road? I remember when I bought my new Prius in 2003, I thought the quietness of the thing was at least as impressive as its gas mileage.
|
WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
Learn More |
Earn Points
What's this? |
Well, count me out. Not that I'll have the choice — I'm sure, as soon as these gadgets become available, they'll become mandatory, just like the infuriating beep-beep-beep of reversing construction vehicles (which can be heard 8.3 miles away, according to my unscientific estimate ... OK, I made that up) and the no-less-annoying beeping my car makes as it reminds me that I'm in reverse.
And I don't appreciate it. I think people can figure out that a car is coming the old-fashioned way: Stop, look and listen. Last I checked, looking was still on the list, and hybrids do not yet come with cloaking devices. Have we grown so paternalistic as a society that we must burden everyone with noise so that a careless few don't get run over by quieter cars?
This, long-term greens like myself know, is a familiar trade-off in the world of government regulation. Seat-belt laws are one example. Childproof caps are another. In these and thousands of other cases, we as a society choose to restrict individual freedom in order to protect people. It's nothing new.
What is new, I think, is the nature of the trade-off. Usually, environmental advocates are on the protectionist side. No, we say, you can't drain the wetland on your property, because it provides benefits to all of us. No, you can't put asbestos in your building, because someone will get cancer. Normally, green values are on the side of restricting individual behavior — usually something that someone wants to do to make money or have fun — in the name of a common good.
But not this time. Now, it's good versus good: the good of quieter roads, and the good of preventing accidents. And so now, we greens need to take a side we're not accustomed to taking: the one with less paternalism, and more liberty. This feels icky to me, because normally it's the "property rights" advocates who make this argument, in the name of cutting down more trees or polluting more rivers. But if it does feel uncomfortable — well, we need to get over it.
It's alienating
First, let's take noise pollution seriously. Yes, it is primarily an aesthetic problem, unlike air pollution and water pollution, which actually kill things (and people) and harm entire ecosystems. No one ever died from annoyance. But noise pollution changes how we live. It stresses us out on a moment-to-moment basis. (I lived in New York City for six years before moving out to the country, in large part to escape the noise.) It places us at a further remove from nature, that much more inside the fake-plastic-tree-lined box of 21st century America. Noise pollution isn't just annoying — it's alienating.
And this alienation has consequences: The less we feel connected to nature, the less likely we are to protect it. When a truck barrels down my country road, I notice — and, for a moment, reflect on how we humans interact with our fellow creatures. When it happened every two seconds in New York, I didn't. Hearing the stream that flows across the road from my house changes how I think, and reminds me of the values I hold dear.
Second, let's reflect seriously on whether our society really needs to protect everyone from everything that is potentially harmful. For example, ought we to require hikers to carry jingle-jangling "bear-sticks" to protect them from the threat of bears in the wilderness? After all, many places require backpackers to carry bear canisters, to keep the critters away from food. So why not extend the rule to cover an array of bear-repellant devices? Hell, why not ban back-country hiking altogether, given the multitude of threats that exist? Put Velcro on slippery rocks! Guard rails on cliffs! Let's pave the trails, so that no one slips and falls!
Obviously, we engage in balancing costs and benefits all the time, even in cases of life and death. We know, for example, that more people will get into accidents if the speed limit is 65 miles per hour, instead of 55. This includes not just reckless drivers, but also their completely innocent victims who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet Americans responded very positively when speed limits were lifted a decade ago. Driving is risky. If you get on the road, you assume some risk.
The critical factors — and I've studied risk since my law school days — are what kind of values are being balanced. In the case of seat belt laws, a very minor incursion upon freedom is tolerated in the name of saving lives — and, of course, if you violate the law, the penalty is slight. In the case of paving the hiking trails, important green values like experiencing nature are deemed more important than the risk some people will be injured — especially since the people are voluntarily engaging in the risky activity.
Same with the other examples. Prohibiting asbestos costs the industry billions of dollars a year, but that purely financial cost is justified by the benefit of saving thousands of lives. The balancing of money vs. lives-of-innocents is different from the balancing of important values against the lives of people who should know better. (If not the child playing in the street, of course, then her parents.)
Peace and quiet
So, greens like me shouldn't worry about opposing these new noisy developments. Yes, we're unaccustomed to opposing regulation that could save lives. But the values on which we are doing so are important, and very different from mere profit motive or convenience.
Do we have a chance? That's another story. Consumer safety advocates have groups to represent them, and they care about this issue. Those of us who value peace and quiet are diffuse, and may not care as much. Environmental groups have pressing battles on their priority list, and may not want to spend resources on this one. So, as with the insidious beeping of bulldozers, I feel like quiet may be destined to lose.
I hope not, though. I hope that with the increase in environmental consciousness that's taken place over the last few years — this Web site being one example of it — comes an increased valuing of connection with nature, the opportunity to get away from the din of civilization, and the importance of peace and quiet. Silence is golden, but in a plugged-in, wired-up, turned-on age in which kids have trouble distinguishing real reality from virtual, silence is green as well.
Jay Michaelson is a columnist for the "Forward" newspaper, the Huffington Post, and "Reality Sandwich" magazine. Jay holds a J.D. from Yale Law School and is completing his Ph.D. in religious studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Do you want to be a guest columnist one day? Send a pitch to bcohen@mnn.com with "I want to be a guest columnist" in the subject line.
MNN homepage photo: JulienGrondin/iStockPhoto
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those
providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of
MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies
with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy
of any of their information.
 WorldShares
lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20
points now.Learn More Earn Points
|
CLOSE
link:
link:
| Previous Post An environmental crisis at home | Next Post Take it from the Packers: Think locally |
Comments
Christine Emmel
11/13/2009 14:34 PM
I drive a hybrid and yes, they are quiet (thankfully). But it's when the electric engine kicks in in parking lots or susburban streets at slow speeds. Toot the horn if you think someone doesn't know you're there!
Teri
11/12/2009 20:57 PM
I think machine noise makers should be a free feature/option offered by electric car manufacturers until people become accustomed to electric vehicles without noise. I think the noise makers will help ease the transition some who are are not only are accustomed to engine noise but also may even enjoy hearing an engine excellerate.
julie
11/12/2009 18:29 PM
I drive every day through busy streets on my hybrid and the quiet engine has changed my life for the better: I drive more calmly. I do not see the point in making cars noisier when most people have their ears occupied with headphones and cell phones, which, when crossing the street are way more dangerous than a quieter car. I would think that a quieter city may result in less people plugging their ears with loud music to avoid car noises.
Jamie
11/12/2009 13:57 PM
Sounds to me like some testing would be a good idea to determine if adding the sound actually makes a difference in safety. How can anyone decide if the added noise is needed or not without actually knowing if there is a benefit to it or not?
Though if added noise becomes a requirement I hope it's not the vroom engine noise but rather a more pleasant sound that serves it's purpose w/o being annoying.
Peugeot lover
11/12/2009 13:06 PM
Enter your comments hereHold on try walking blind folded on a city street, now if you could at least hear the cars,
these are heavy moving objects "silent but deadly" do the right thing put a cool crisp flying saucer sound at least....
molly
11/12/2009 12:28 PM
Enter your comments here
I live in a noisy, busy city. The quiet cars are a danger to pedestrians. I would not buy one without some sound added to protect those who might be injured or killed. In a perfect world, maybe drivers and pedestrians are careful and cautious at all times but lets protect ourselves and others by adding appropriate sound to the quiet car.
mg
11/11/2009 11:01 AM
I think some small measure should be placed on vehicles, as there are many pedestrians with limited/non-existent sight. I don't think they should be like the annoying chirps or beeps of a cross-walk, but a "whisper" or breeze-type noise for those in a 500 - 800 foot radius (need enough time to react) would be beneficial.
rshreeves
11/09/2009 12:05 PM
As someone who has a hybrid and as a mom who has taught her kids that part of being safe around cars is to listen, I find the silence of my hybrid to be a problem.
I take special care, particularly on residential streets where cars are parked end to end along both sides of the road. People often have to come partially out in the road to cross it before they can see well. I have had parents with kids in tow who do look both ways be very surprised to see my car coming around a bend. We are.... More
wahleyed
11/09/2009 10:27 AM
I've heard this argument about hybrids and electrics being to quiet, and as an active cyclist, I started paying attention. Except for the occasional really loud vehicle you can hear coming towards you, it seems to me that the noise I hear from an approaching car are wind noise and the sound of the tires on the pavement. I don't usually hear any engine noise until the car is next to me, or by me and moving away. This seems to also comply with physics and the direction we send our.... More
Samuel
11/07/2009 09:35 AM
Nicely put. Seeing as how the current debates in our country have become "that's the way we've always done it" vs. "maybe something new could enhance out lives" this comes as no surprise. The ignorance of a few that fail to stop, look and listen and then sue when they do so, seems to take precedence over common sense.
