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

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. Introduction:

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

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

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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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%