By law (at least in many states in the US), they do. You did know that, right?

What does the last line of that article say? I'll copy it here for you: THE BILL DID NOT BECOME LAW. So where is the citation that there was ever a law. For that matter, where is the citation that the legislature actually made such a bill? And no, wikipedia does not count.

In NY, bicycles by law must have a bell and it must be used.

Well at least you will have the comfort of knowing, with your dying breath, that it was the other guys responsibility.

How do you explain the studies done by the NHTSA that show hybrids and electrics, at speeds under 35MPH, are 37% more likely to hit walkers and 66% more likely to hit cyclists than ICE cars?

Uh, no. You can't provide a citation of something that never was. You can, however, provide a citation to something that supposedly exists. So, where exactly is the citation for this 'law'? Let me guess: wikipedia. Oops, even that (again providing no citations) specifically says it never became law.

Fun fact: studies have shown that hybrid and electric cars are 37% more likely to hit pedestrians and 66% more likely to hit cyclists than ICE cars at under 35MPH.

You may not THINK you are hearing engine noise, but you are, and it makes a difference.

There was never such a law.

Just because something was not designed specifically to be a safety feature does not, in fact, mean it is not a safety feature. Noise IS used as a safety feature.

Let me guess, you are one of those people who are so superior to everyone else that you can rely solely on vision to determine when it is safe to cross a road. Even at night with a moron driver who 'forgot' to put on his lights. Even when your vision is momentarily distracted by something. Even if you are blind.

The noise that carmakers add is completely different from the mandated engine noise that the GP is complaining about. That mandated noise IS entirely a safety issue. Unless, of course, you think that the sense of hearing evolved entirely accidentally and has nothing to do with increasing you chances of staying alive.

What, exactly, was 'ridiculous' about the law that there had to be a person ahead of the car? The reason for that 'ridiculous' law was that a nosiy car could, in fact, scare a horse and cause it to bolt, and a bolting horse is a dangerous thing. The person had to be in front of the car to warn others that it was approaching so they could be prepared, nothing ridiculous about that at all. Once cars became commonplace they were no longer scary as people and animals got used to them. When that happened there was no further need for a person in front or a law requiring such.

Like it or not, people have been trained for over a century that cars make noise. We even instruct children to 'stop, look, and listen'. The world is not going to suddenly adapt to silent cars. People (and service animals) will need to get used to silent cars - that is not going to happen until silent cars are ubiquitous, which is certainly not true now. There is nothing ridiculous about mandating some amount of noise in the meantime.

Dixonpete said it seemed pretty clear to him, indicating that he is smoking dope. See what happens when you put an unsubstantiated editorial comment in with a quote? Now go back and read that stupid '... upgrades will be free for one year, indicating a move to a subscription...; line and tell us which is a quote and which is editorial comment. Here is a hint: Microsoft said not one word about subscriptions.

Sorry, but you are the one with the cognitive dissonance. A restaurant filming me does not bother me at all. Why? Because they don't do anything with it other than in the case of a crime. Show me a restaurant or bar that posts images and videos to the internet, and I will show you a business that is not long for this world.

If you can't tell the difference between someone taking a selfie and someone taking a picture of others that is your problem, don't assume everyone else has the same difficulty.

'Non-free' and 'more restrictive' have NOTHING to do with it. Unless it is truely public domain, ALL software is licensed only.

Yes, some idiot writer interpreted their 'free upgrade for one year' as 'indicating subscriptions'. That does not, in fact, mean that Windows will be by subscription. Nowhere does Microsoft say (or indicate) it will be by subscription.

Note that the 'free upgrade for one year' is the same thing they did with Windows 8, which is NOT subscription.