My original question was “How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs” but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn’t change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?
Tinnitus is affected by constant exposure, not just dB. Cars make noise and a constant low droning sound gives you tinnitus as well.
I, too, have videos of bicycles behaving poorly. Again, cognitive dissonance; we are not discussing bicycles.
As a former sound engineer, I am well aware of the dangers of volume and exposure limits.
If a liesurly drive way in the mountains gives you hearing damage, your bigger concern is why you’re being dragged behind a car.
As a current employee of the municipal road maintenance and service depot, I’d like to think we have more relevant data than a sound engineer on the harm caused by road noise.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/road-traffic-remains-biggest-source
Dude, I already tore a similar article a new one weeks ago.
If it’s anything like the last article, they cherry picked data and exaggerated results…
See if this applies: linky
Ohh … Turtle is done laying eggs and running away! Got to go!
You are correct and the thousands of scientists who have come to this same conclusion are wrong, totally bro
Ahhh ok, because you asked so nicely.
Nothing in the article mentions sound levels in the dangerous range.
In fact, it can be sumed up with "This just in, traffic can be heard! More at 11!
Drumroll Leeeeeeets check the charts!
It basically says traffic can be heard in the distance.
I don’t know how to explain this to you this without resorting to crayons but let me try to put it succinctly:
Low dB are still dangerous to health if they are constant and over a long period of time.
You don’t have to reply, I know you disagree.
Its easy to disagree with information that is wrong.
As I mentioned in my previous post about the subject, “Noise pollution” is (according to that article) defined as “unwanted” sounds, not dangerous. The “harmful” part, as it turned out, were simply distractions.
Your article doesn’t define what they consider noise pollution nor any dangers ambient sound may cause. Before you claim any “danger to health”, you need to define what qualifies because we are both using these words very differently.
I’m pretty sure, the “danger for health” argument is not just hearing loss.
For a simple example. Try sleeping in a room with noise level at around 70dBA. Your sleep quality will suffer to say the least. In a longer time you will develop insomnia like symptoms.