Talk:Back-up beeper

audio file

Who ist responsible for this useless and stup... I mean unintelligent usage of this audio file? The article is about the Back-up beep and the audio file is presenting 90% audio of some random building construction. It's three and a half minutes long(!) only to show 10 seconds of beeping and since there is no fast forward or jump to the point where the beeping begins, you force the visiter to sit and wait 1:30 minutes without no use. So please cut the 10 seconds out or use a better audio file. If there is no better one, please remove this extremely useless file, it's embarrassing to have something like this on Wikipedia.

 Done Your wish has been granted. It took me about 30 minutes to get the sound and process it well enough to upload it. When I originally included the other recording, I was happy to have found a properly licensed recording of a back-up beeper anyhow and didn't have the time to get my own sound. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any info on the safety hazard these pain devices pose?

Back-up beepers can be incredibly loud. I've often been unable to think clearly, to stand up, even to crawl away, under the sonic bombardment. 96.231.17.32 (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"breaks concentration" is an understatement. As someone with hyperacusis and spd, "hits me so hard with so much pain I can do nothing but collapse in agony and hope to die" is a better description of the effects of these "safety" weapons. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Back-up beeper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117093435/http://www.triton-signal.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=32 to http://www.triton-signal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Back up beeper frequencies

The sentence concerning "typical" back up frequencies has here been interpreted to mean that the beepers actually produce precisely 1000 hz, but that wasn't what the cited article meant. The article meant by 1000 hz just a ballpark figure, and in fact it is a few hundred hz off what the "typical" single tone back up beeper is, exactly. That precise frequence is 1250, or a very slightly sharp E flat tone. I would suggest citing a different article I found that includes the precise frequency of the single tone alarm, and the range of frequencies of the multi-tone. Since the single tone alarm is the one most often heard and used, it represents the exact typical frequency: 1250 hz, not "1000 hz." The more accurate information is from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24231421 "Comparison of sound propagation and perception of three types of backup alarms with regards to worker safety"

"The multi-tone alarm consists of three primary tones located between 1000 and 1300 Hz, whereas the conventional tonal alarm contains a single primary tone around 1250 Hz in addition to even and odd harmonics weaker by 30 dB or more." Cdg1072 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Another city ban

In searching for information about the London ban, I also found Victoria, BC, CAN is considering a ban.[1] -- ke4roh (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi-Jacked

I would suggest that whoever has (essentially) spammed the article with a bunch of editorial material about how damned BAD beepers are should be encouraged to make that a subsection of an article on noise pollution. The focus of the article should be on the tech item itself, its use as a safety feature, with maybe a brief section on how criticism has led to their being much modified in some jurisdictions. As it stands the bulk of the article is now devoted to a weird kind of propaganda against the device. Theonemacduff (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

On the criticism

Alright, I confess. (You can also see this confession in edit history if you go back to the beginning.) I put in the negative words about back-up beepers. I was motivated to create this article because I was working days in an office across the street from a construction zone where they were doing extensive preparations to the soil so that it might support a building, and there was highway construction 1000 feet out my front door about the same time.

That said, I believe criticism of the noise pollution created by the initial design of these devices is warranted. Recently, I have noticed that at least one of the trucks rounding the cul-de-sac here has a new design of back-up-beeper, and, since I get to work from home almost exclusively thanks to COVID, I should be able to dart out and get a recording of it before too long. The new design takes into account several of the issues, and it is nowhere near as mind-numbing.

The Back-up beeper is evolving. It has been roundly criticized, and improvements have followed. We should endeavor to document the change, and insofar as the criticism pertains to early designs, focus criticism on them. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)