Siren Notification Inside Cars

7 OTs?

What's wrong with you guys?

If you consider a question stupid, how hard is it to ignore it?

These childish, wolfpack mentality beatdowns are getting really old.

IHS- Where immature bullies rule the playgound.

Stop it.

5+2=7.

Whasa big deal.

Whateva...

There was nothing malicious from the OP, and I'm fairly sure that IHS is actually interested in getting people to click on CR4 and maybe hang around.

There are a few here that want to circle the wagons and move in for the kill, before a newbie is even able to get his/her feet wet.

It's petty and stupid. Just sayin'.

Do what you want.

If they did that you can bet there would be a sea of hackers working hard to find ways to activate it at will.

The bottom line is: Situational Awareness.

You always need to expect the unexpected when driving. I am routinely checking rearview mirrors to keep an eye out not only for emergency vehicles, but traffic threats in general.

Maintaining situational awwareness is good advice, but consider the 100,000,00 or so drivers in this country who will never have that.

By my reasoning there are about twice that many who should have never gotten a drivers licence to begin with in this country.

Owning and driving a vehicle should be a privilege that is well earned not a right that is bestowed on any and every dipsh!t that thinks they need to go someplace that their legs or public transportation could have gotten them to without being a danger and nuisance to the rest of us.

BTW I have a class A Commercial Drivers Licence with all the bells and whistles and to be honest I think that the time, effort, cost and above all responsibility that goes into getting that and keeping it should be the minimum standard that everyone who wants to operate a vehicle should have to match.

The #1 danger to truck drivers is not other truck drivers with like licences. It's the vast majority of people with the lowest level of licence that is required to be on the road.

Sounds like you've seen me on the road??

GA, that's pretty much what I was going to say.

It may be a good idea but the massive expense and difficulty trying to get all the automotive and government departments that would need to be involved to agree and implement the solution would be astronomical. Any half measure could cause more problems than it solves.

In addition this still won't solve the larger problem of "red-light runners" who also run through red lights and have to be watched out for at blind intersections, and depending on where you are, are MORE likely to occur than emergency vehicles.

Situational awareness still seems like the best option here.

You could put a mortar on the hood of the emergency vehicle that lobs a flashbang into the center of the intersection before proceeding.

dont sweat V-V is headed your way...a computer will over-ride your choices and the emerg vehicle will prevail while you crank up the Led Zep

Those of us out here that get a little enthusiastic when driving sometimes or are gadget freaks (like me) and have decent radar detectors in their vehicles will find that the technology already exists in certain dectectors.

In addition to emergengy vehicle warning system (no this is not the radar/lidar portion of the detector) it also warns of active train proximity alerts for safety at crossings.

But the downside is this, NOT ALL EMERGENGY SERVICES VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED with this type of transmitter (it should only be active when lights and siren are active) and not everyone is a scofflaw like me.

I wouldn't be surprised if the GPS folks have the capability of including this type of feature.

A lot of people have died while being in the right.....Drive Defensively....

50+ yrs ago Mom stated you don't want to be "dead right", or even left for dead for that matter.

"Being on an emergency call is not a carte blanche excuse for ignoring common traffic laws ..."

In Florida, as well as most (if not all) states emergency vehicles must still obey speed limits.

Our city's trucks come to almost a complete stop before transgressing an intersection that has an active red light.

The root of the problem is that people get too stuck into their driving routines and fail to consider the possibility of emergencies and their consequences.

Exactly my point. Even the most attentive drivers might have less than perfect focus at times. Anything that helps to get our attention would be beneficial. (Put the phone down and drive!!)

We've already got them here. The equipment comprises translucent windows in all vehicles, flashing blue lights on those operated by the emergency services, and the drivers of the latter receive special training.

I can imagine circumstances where that sort of thing could be a benefit to safety. I don't really see it adding that much cost to a car, radios already receive radio signals so it's not like your adding totally new functionality, not to mention economies of scale that would soon apply, but the equipment on the Emergency Vehicle could be a bit more costly.

Another thought that crossed my mind, and I believe some traffic signals already do this, would be for the traffic signal to sense the Emergency Vehicle and switch to a 4 way red or give the green to the responding vehicle.

I'm afraid nobody will implement the system you propose because the costs will not justify the benefits (it doesn't happen often enough). After all, there are out there more than 50 years old solutions for avoiding the drivers' blinding (by using polarized light) and nobody implemented them yet (although they might save many more lives)!

But not all hope is lost! There is a growing tendency to equip cars with MediaNav and Wi-Fi systems. And when this will become common enough, just some additional software will allow the emergency vehicles to repeatedly broadcast an emergency signal followed by the vehicle's position. And any close enough vehicle will automatically trigger a warning (it can be a voice message like "Caution! Emergency vehicle approaching from your left!") and show on the map the position of the approaching emergency vehicle. It will also work better if (by coincidence) there is more than one emergency vehicle nearby.

And this is more likely to happen because it implies just some relatively cheap software added to already existing equipment.

We have them here is a few spots and more than a few motorists have been cited for trying to manipulate them for their own desires.

For some people it is something of both a challenge and a dare.

There is already a solution for the problem of not being able to see/hear emergency vehicles approaching intersections.

In many suburbs around Chicago (but not in Chicago itself) The traffic lights are designed to intercept a signal from the emergency vehicle and change the lights so the road the emerg. vehicle is entering from has a green light. When this system activates, white lights (something like a floodlight) mounted on the top of the signal lighting bar turn on, solid white for the direction about to be stopped, flashing white for the direction of traffic that will be allowed to continue.

No modification to passenger cars required, no required retraining of drivers needed, and the system is unobtrusive (the white light housing looks something like a traffic camera when the light is off.)

Post #17 ?

NIH

That acronym is really the acronym of the USA....seen it happen far too often....

I like those Euro sirens that go: NEE NAAH NEE NAAH! Especially good Doppler effect.

Let see what was learned.

A device to wake these less attentive people up will make them more attentive.

Having a commercial drivers license makes you the best driver.

Approaching an intersection with a green light I should assume that everyone has stop for me.

LOL

Other traffic hazards to watch for;

• Ice cream shops.
• Fast food places.
• Lotto dealers.
• Cheer leader carwashes.
• Saloons.
• Road construction with the warning signs over the crest of a hill with a 50MPH speed limit.
• On and off ramps with a flatbed trailer that has a single roll of steel that you know is heavy based on the 20 chains holding the roll.
• Stretches of road with several crosses adorned with plastic flowers and the initials "RIP"
• People texting so intently that they fail to notice pieces of their car flying off.
• Noticing the radiator core detail in your rear view mirror.

You didn't include

Blondes behind the wheel.

Any person talking on a cell phone while trying to find a street or address or business.

Anyone under the age of 25.

Anyone group under the age of 25.

Never mind, this list will turn into a NEL.

Not even close.

The number usually increases when the OP complains about people not playing by his rules too.

I would like to take your idea to the next level. I also agree that the radio should indicate when emergency vehicles are approaching and the traffic light should also change to blinking both the red and yellow lights in all directions to visually notify all traffic at the intersection to stay still or get out of the way appropriately.

How practical is the idea?

For example:-

1) My car radio is switched off, how will it get switched on?

2) I am listening to CDs, DVDs or even cassette music, how will it be switched to radio at the right frequency?

It implies that millions of car radios will be junked and replaced with new (still not designed!) ones. Who will pay?

Furthermore, a law change will be needed to force car drivers to replace their radios.

How many years will it take until EVERYONE has a new radio? Till then the danger exists!!!

Totally impractical....

In the whole scheme of things I don't understand why this would be considered such a difficult thing.

1) Like a lot of electronics now a days, just because the radio is off doesn't mean it doesn't have power. Most have clocks or station memories that require some amount of power so to keep a receiver going is not a big deal.

2. The radio will always be receiving on that emergency frequency, it's not unlike people with XM/Sirius with traffic alerts, it's always receiving those signals in the background. Also similar to those with GPS, the alert will just override your current audio source just like the directions override whatever audio source is playing.

This would not be a retrofit type thing, it would have to be a feature that comes out on new cars. Kind of like air-bags, nobody got air bags added to old cars but in time almost all cars now have them.

Why is this being looked at as an all or nothing proposition. Like most new technologies, especially in the auto industry, this could come out on higher end cars and would trickle down to cheaper cars as the prices came down.

Honestly, I'm not saying this is a great thing or even should be done, I just don't understand why someone comes on here with an interesting idea, and instead of exploring it everybody just want to jump on it as either impractical or stupid.

It implies an expensive replacement of a working car radio.

How will the finance be organized?

It falls down on the financial and the time needed, IF a change to the law is made....which will probably lose the president his job at the next election.....so NO support from on high!!

Do you not try and think things through logically?

Of course its not a problem technically, there are millions of people around who could design one....but most will have far better things to do!!

Try answering my questions of how it will be financed and made a legal requirement before going off on a tangent.

Not sure what you talking about, no tangent here. Just answering your questions.

Also read my post, no replacement of working car radio, it would be implemented on new cars, so change to a new radio. It could be kind of like what happened with front air bags, its mandatory for cars built after some date in the future, cars built before that date are exempt. I don't like that approach, I hate being told I have to have something, I'm just pointing out how it could be done. I would see it more like what happened with side curtain air bags, starts as an option on certain cars and as it grows (or doesn't grow) in popularity would become available on more cars.

To answer your question, it could be made a requirement for Government vehicles. I hope most would agree it is not a huge hurdle to include it in new vehicles. Then once the government is using it the population at large would have the option to buy it with new cars. It doesn't have to be made a requirement for everyone to have them, it could be a choice. What does have to be a requirement is for Emergency Vehicles to have the transmitter, this would put more burden on small communities to add the technology to all of their Emergency Vehicles. This is the difficult part in implementing a system like this.

I'm not really sure why the hostility seems to surround this issue. I took it as a debate as to what could be done, not what has to be done. In your previous post you seemed to suggest that it was not technically feasible. Then you seemed to be angered when I disagree with that.

See how you get on with implementing it, I won't hold my breath I will be impressed if you manage it!

The method already in use in many areas that I mentioned previously and posted a weblink detailing the methods, should not cost any vehicle owner anything at all.

It will also protect people on bikes or motorbikes (who mostly do not have radios anyway, you appear to have forgotten them!) AND pedestrians trying to cross the street also without radios!

Tell me now how your system will protect pedestrians, or two wheeled riders! Not forgetting the years needed before ALL cars have such a radio.

Please give me your thoughts on these problems.....you have addressed such things I trust!!

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Abuse/Attack: This post was deleted because it was an attack on another user. Please review the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Abuse/Attack: This post was deleted because it was an attack on another user. Please review the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

I should have added IGNORANT.

Go back and READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD

"Siren Notification Inside Cars"

From the OP, "an alarm could be sounded INSIDE the car" Emphasis is the author's.

Even you seemed to grasp the concept, when you finally joined in, late as usual!

And, even in #34.

Not until Shawn33 made a comment, did you see an opportunity to try and belittle someone by displaying your "superior" intellect" did you drag the thread totally OFF TOPIC by including unrelated issues 38.

Get over yourself and sit on your hands, you ass.

"Siren Notification Inside Cars"

Totally pointless - as usual!!!

Nothing new here.

But if you would be so kind as to air your knowledge on such things as:-

Development cost and funding, who should do this?

How development will be funded?

Cost to vehicle holder for new radio and installation?

Problems of installing/compatability on some older and possibly some newer models of cars and trucks, especially those with a CANBus system?

Have ANY of these possible problem areas been discussed ANYWHERE except on CR4? If yes, what were the conclusions......

If no, I rest my case!!!

Please answer at least a few of my queries in a logical and cool manner, thanks in advance...

You have no case to rest. And don't change the subject.

"Do you not try and think things through logically?"

No, you are so obsessed with being right that nothing else matters.

Andy, you should follow your own advice, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt!"

Did you forget what you said?

"It will also protect people on bikes or motorbikes (who mostly do not have radios anyway, you appear to have forgotten them!) AND pedestrians trying to cross the street also without radios!

Tell me now how your system will protect pedestrians, or two wheeled riders! Not forgetting the years needed before ALL cars have such a radio."

The title of the thread is

"Siren Notification Inside Cars"

Good Bye.

As expected, absolutely no answer for such problems.

And simply ignoring those problems does not make them disappear as you probably wish they would!!

You basically said "I meant ONLY cars!!!"

Why in Gods name ONLY CARS, are they somehow better that two wheel drivers and pedestrians? Please tell us why ONLY CARS!!!!?

Where the systems ALREADY IN USE IN MANY AREAS OF THE WORLD, protect ALL road users and ALL pedestrians and requires no new development and no new development funding.

No ripping out of radios.....combined with no radio replacements needed and no possible car radio compatibility problems.

Not forgetting that all the radios ripped out will eventually have to be simply thrown away.

So we can guess that you don't drive a modern car, a Mercedes for example, who sometimes have Radio/Nav costing new some $5,000 for example......

Bu even cheap Radio/Navs in say a VW car can cost new over $3,000.....just to be junked by your system!!!!

Totally laughable.....

And you accuse me of having no logic and always wanting to be right!

Also picking on my "saying" has made you look absolutely stupid......but we all knew that already!!! Nothing new there!!

You should have been a politician, you share their type and style of thinking!!!

I don't!

Well said. To address the naysayers, it would be a marginal cost (less than a dollar) to current electronic controlled radios, cheaper than a car wash...

It has been commented on magazines like Popular Mechanics/Science (maybe they are too "elemental" for all those geniuses tring to ridiculize the idea).

The enourmous task I believe is to unify car and radio makers on a universal solution (that means the whole planet Earth, not only USA).

Insuring companies, enforcement and emergency agencies will be VERY happy to save money as a result of fewer accidents (colliding with an emergency vehicle is a common cause of accidents).

I'm sure if you have a high end vehicle you will be more than eager to spend a buck to avoid the possibility of an accident. I will surely pay that dollar to have extra warnings, even that I'm driving an old modest car.

And there are other technologies already in place to avoid accidents, but you don't mock them, like ABS (should you brake more carefully?), collision detection and automatic braking (Should you drive more attentively?), sideways vehicle warning (Should you adjust your side mirrors AND be more attentive?)

But the bottom line is lives saved, seems like you don't care for human life (some have said this is a trivial proposal, that should be decided on cost/benefit basis...) but... What if the life lost is one of your children? Does cost/benefit applies here?

Your missed the point by not looking over the impact it can have.

Lets look at possible costs.

The initial cost can be low, but whose responsible if you do get in an accident.

Or how about a recall, for this small item.

Would you still say inexpensive item?

And now the responsibility if it fails. That is another item.

No, the Risk/Benefit ratio is not affordable.

If an individual is so inattentive at driving that they need more warnings that can cause more distractions, then its time to consider taking up public transportation.

Because its time to take ownership of ones own responsibility to drive.

You were on your way to a preventable accident citation had you survived. Not the attention type one appreciates.

A definitely cheaper and more effective approach would be to have those emergency vehicles equipped with a device to signal traffic lights control system in front of them to give them priority and enough time to other vehicles to stop, of course use MUST be logged and used ONLY on emergencies. And don't argue about such a system's possibility to be hijacked, it CAN be made invunerable, and even a stolen such device can be tracked and/or remotely rendered useless. S.M.

Like it!!

Ooops! Looks others including you mentioned that something similar to my(!) system is already implemented. Nevermind. I was not going to ask for copyright royalties. But that does not change the fact that it took 100 years of motoring to get to a solution I came up in 10 seconds. (LMAO) S.M.

The first systems were installed in the USA in 1969 as far as I can tell from the web.

So its nothing new.

Were you even born in 1969?

Were you old enough to drive in 1969?

I would say everyone of a driving age today, should have heard of such systems.....but thats only my opinion! Obviously you have never ever heard of it!! Its probably not a legal requirement!

They were never installed secretly....

I hope you find the following links helpful, interesting and informative:-

its_publicsafety

and here:-

Traffic_signal_preemption

In the U.S., only certain municipalities have these systems, and varies by state as well.

Similar to the high cost per vehicle you mentioned, the cost per intersection and per emergency vehicle would be astronomical.

Safety does have a price ceiling, unfortunately.

Compared to the costs of replacing every cars radio (which may also be an expensive Nav/GPS as well), its a drop in the ocean.......

Plus it covers everyone at a traffic light junction fitted with it, not just car radio owners who put out the money to update.....

Its also not needed at every junction, every where......probably more in the big cities and almost none outside the cities.....I would expect that there is software to evaluate a) is it needed at all and b) what type would be best.

In 2007 it was estimated that there were 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the USA !

That was not counting trucks and motorbikes.....

In the town where I lived in New Hampshire where the accident I described in a previous note happened, I was minorly involved with the fire department. When the accident happened the hardware to control the signals in that particular intersection to give right of way to emergency vehicles had already been installed but was still awaiting testing to certify it.

The reason for installing the device at that particular intersection was very detailed in that it was one of the most congested intersections on the most heavily traveled thoroughfare in the town. Part of the requirements of installation was a studied survey that found that emergency response in that part of town was below standard and needed to be improved. At the time, circa 1990, the most cost effective solution was signal control triggered by a particular sequence of strobing lights on the emergency vehicle. Only a handful of intersections were ever equipped.

I see no reason to come up with hardware that must be installed on every vehicle within the country of interest when non-intrusive systems exist and work pretty well. Are they perfect? Of course not. As much as the US Federal gov't would argue there is no one solution fits all and probably most of the cars that would be required to have an onboard emergency awareness system would never use it.

Accidents continue to happen no matter what. Welcome to life.

Hooker

GA

I like your thought processes!

The trend towards traffic circles would add cost too.

Exactly what I meant in message #57.

The purpose for putting in the intersection control was not to stop collisions, it was to get emergency vehicles to the scene quicker.

Any prevention of collisions in transit was just a nice benefit but not recognized as a true need for the system.

Hooker

Ooops, meant to say message #56.

Sorry.

In theory it seems good, but I wonder how it plays out in practice and if the benefits justifies the costs.

It may in some intersections, but others may be a wash.

What I have observed is that emergency vehicles are always slowing down at intersections because there usually is a knot of stopped cars there anyway.

Forcing the light red may help, but you will always have to contend with the possibility of those that are turning right on red.

It's all a balancing act in risk management.

We learned a long time ago that the quicker we can respond to an emergency the less risk of property damage or bodily injury or death, so a municipality has an explicit requirement to get there quick.

However, there is also a need to understand that if an uncontrolled response results in the responder not getting there due to accident then nobody is served and more people and property are at risk. Thus, emergency vehicle drivers are not exempt from driving laws or common sense, or the awareness that others on the road will act stupidly or otherwise react crazily.

Successful emergency response plans don't happen by accident. That's why, here in the US, there's a National Fire Academy. Not only do they provide training in all aspects of emergency management, they are also the ANSI or ASME for municipal fire departments for all their planning needs. My ex, when she was a secretary in the fire chiefs office in that New Hampshire town, even went to the academy for training in Hazmat response management. She was responsible for the fire department Hazmat computer systems. Wow, did that get detailed, particularly regarding evacuation planning!!! It's akin to herding cats.

Sorry to be so long winded.

Hooker

There more to that, in rural areas, if there is an accident on a border between two townships, there have be arguments that break out on which township take control. at the scene of an accident.

I had a designer that worked for me, and he was a volunteer fireman. And an accident happen just like this that he was on. He said it was a very embarrassing situation. And if they're not careful, it can turn up to be grounds for a lawsuit.

That means there has not been good planning in mutual assistance between the jurisdictions. All that has been covered by specs and standards developed by the National Fire Academy. Planning specs by the NFA have been developed for all regions, from urban to rural.

The authorities in the area you speak of have been remiss in their planning duties.

Where I live now there are awesome plans in place to address these problems. Not that there can't be issues created by overzealous volunteers!! But the commander on site should be all over that kind of attitude.

Hooker

That is so correct, Also.

Volunteer fire department personal, they are an intrical part of smaller communities, I have to credit them for this for their commitment.

(a personal experience, we had a barn fire back in 1980, within 15 minutes since the fire was first noticed, to the time the first fire truck arrived and was pumping water was 15 minutes. All volunteers, that was unbelievable and was reassuring. )

But the attitudes that make them excel at this, works against them when instances like this occur and its like taking a toy away from a child. And your description of overzealous volunteers is a correct description.

GA

Thats simply common sense!! Some here have problems with that, but not me!!

Can you please right something that I can disagree with, once in a while?

We have had our share. ;-)

Driving is a privilege and you have to stay alert. Does not matter if you have a right of way or not. Its not a prefect world out there.

I dated a girl a while back, when she cross the street, she would never look. There were a number of times I had to grab her , and sometimes to pull her out of the way just to save her life.

Her defense was, as a pedestrian, she had the Right of Way (arrogant little nurse).

Until one time she said that, I responded, "I'll make sure it gets put on your epitaph.

"Here Lies "So and so", I may have been run over my a car, But I did have the right of way."

Needless to say this worked.

"There were a number of times I had to grab her."

Reminds me of a story a guy told when he went to England and was about to cross the street, but habitually looked the wrong way.

A local buddy grabbed him just before he was about to be hit and said, "This is why we call you guys Yanks!"

Brilliant!

"I was recently passing through an intersection with a green light. In the lane next to me was a school bus that had not started to move yet" Ask yourself "Should I continue, or is there a reason for the stopped school bus"?

GA

Don't confused with being insulted or being challenged.

(Text is not showing up. I'll try it without checking OT box. Or maybe the server is just acting up again.)

Don't confuse challenging with rudeness. It isn't that hard to conduct a civil conversation.

Exactly how did I insult you? If you consider my alternative to your request to modify 200 million or so vehicles an insult, you are very thin skinned indeed. Why don't you rent a PO Box in Suffolk County, NY and become a resident? Then you can forward your idea to a group of folks on your level. Who knows maybe it will come to "pass". Bad pun intended.

I didn't mention you specifically. But your references to Suffolk county in both posts is unknown to me, but strikes me as rude. I'm not going to waste time looking it up. Your tone was pretty clear to me, emoticons or not.

If you wanted to make a point, you could have just posted some facts.

Maybe I AM too thin skinned for this forum. I thought it was a place to discuss engineering issues with some people with experience, and willingness to have a constructive conversation.

I think that the problem lies with us, we are Engineers, and we look for simple and practical ways to develop or fix things......not make them difficult to install and costly...

As someone recently pointed out, changing 200 million vehicle radios (actually not even close, 240 million passenger vehicles alone in the US!), probably at the cost of the owners, will never work, nor will it be accepted....and Engineers simply cannot even stand to read about such "fixes" as they are totally impractical....so it then gets rough!

Furthermore, the original "fix" proposed did not in any way protect two wheel users or pedestrians, whereas the fixes (several types around) already in place at many important junctions around the world, actually have been in use since the 1960s......so they have a long test procedure already made.....

Also, they do not need to be on every junction.

Huge amount of Money saved!!

Have a great day....and please be practical!!!

Most auto audio systems go to half volume when the car is shut down then re-started so there must be a trigger involved.

However, with the average decibel level of an emergency vehicle horn of 120 db. @ 10', perhaps a higher level such as that of a train chime @ 158 db. would be an improvement?

Don't recall the municipality but I've read about a group of fireman who had a lawsuit against one of the major siren manufacturers. IIRC correctly it was either Federal or Whalen. The reason the "sirens were too loud and caused hearing loss". It isn't the manufacturer who is at fault but the entity who wrote the bid specifications.

Each year when before I hit the magic age we had to attend an annual meeting where new rules and procedures were decimated, (no misspelling). Each one of these stressed PPE's hearing protection was only topped by eye protection. We went to great lengths to ensure are folks abided by the rules. This of course was negated by people wearing ear buds and you could hear the noise at 15 feet, or cars stereos that rattle windows at 1/4 mile.

It would imply sound proofing needed for the emergency vehicle as I believe over 100db (in reality even less I found out!) can an cause hearing damage....

Pedestrians, possible close to the vehicle on the side of the road, may also get hearing damage.....

I find the idea to be possibly dangerous, to hearing "health", but better "deaf" than "dead" you think?

But the next time an emergency vehicle goes by???

I found this, which fits in with my own "sketchy" knowledge, and it claims that sounds above 85db can permanently damage hearing:-

Of the roughly 40 million Americans suffering from hearing loss, 10 million can be attributed to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). NIHL can be caused by a one-time exposure to loud sound as well as by repeated exposure to sounds at various loudness levels over an extended period of time. Damage happens to the microscopic hair cells found inside the cochlea. These cells respond to mechanical sound vibrations by sending an electrical signal to the auditory nerve. Different groups of hair cells are responsible for different frequencies (rate of vibrations). The healthy human ear can hear frequencies ranging from 20Hz to 20,000 Hz. Over time, the hair cell's hair-like stereocilia may get damaged or broken. If enough of them are damaged, hearing loss results. The high frequency area of the cochlea is often damaged by loud sound.

Sound pressure is measured in decibels (dB). Like a temperature scale, the decibel scale goes below zero. The average person can hear sounds down to about 0 dB, the level of rustling leaves. Some people with very good hearing can hear sounds down to -15 dB. If a sound reaches 85 dB or stronger, it can cause permanent damage to your hearing.

At this website for even more detail:-

noise-induced-hearing-loss

My take is that is simply too loud for road usage.....though the idea shows thought!

It would imply sound proofing needed for the emergency vehicle as I believe over 100db (in reality even less I found out!) can an cause hearing damage....

Hearing loss is not only attributed to the louder noise, but hearing loss can also be caused by more subtle, BUT continuous and steady sounds.

Very nice, but sound is like the Kelvin temperature scale. I doubt you can get 0 sound on earth. The "-" is in reference to some standard sound level. The reference level for 0db is 20 uPA at 1KHz. This is generally considered the lowest discernible sound that can be heard by a person with "20/20" hearing.

I find it interesting that it turned out to be a logarithmic scale. When Mr Bell put it together, 1 "Bell" was the minimum change in intensity a human could discern.

the lower frequency ranges maybe more effective

My suggestion (#90) is derived from the title "Siren Notification Inside Cars". One way to "get inside the car" is with sound level, I am not talking about the steady siren, but the air or electronic horns used in approach and passage through an intersection.