Are you serious? You think blind people pop up out of nowhere and cross roads anywhere? The middle of a highway, maybe? Just parked their car perhaps? You're suggesting that we redesign the entire world just for blind people? A noble sentiment but rather impossible.
How exactly does a blind person navigate on their own without any landmarks such as crossings? Face it - they have restricted movement. They will never get it all back unless they get artificial or restored sight. Why would a blind person attempt to cross a road at anywhere other than a crossing without a seeing-eye dog or a helper, even with regular cars? That's courting disaster, even now! Blind people should stay on the pavement and cross at crossings - which is what they do now and I have never, in many, many years heard of or seen a blind person attempt to cross a road by themselves at anywhere other than a crossing. Even sighted pedestrians should stick to crossings a lot more than they do. If it was, for some reason, essential for a blind person to cross a road anywhere other than a crossing, then they really must have a seeing-eye dog or a sighted helper - I would have thought that was obvious enough. And BTW, a bicycle (silent) will still do a blind person injury in a collision on a road.
If you want to re-design the whole world for disabled people, then you can pay for it yourself (or are you only a supporter of the proposal as long as someone else pays?). I'll limit my tax support to designing/redesigning crossings, building entrances and selected phone/internet/library services and the like - basically what we do now, since it's perfectly adequate. We've been putting in audible signals at crossings for many years and they work just fine.
This "noisemaker" proposal is just another ill-thought, knee-jerk reaction from dumb politicians who believe that the cost of anything they propose if zero and that the benefits they imagine are somehow magical and all-pervasive. They want their hero status and they want it now.
But I'm not surprised there a few arguing the other way. After all, it's always an easy position to take to "defend" the disabled, the children, the ethnic minorities or the poor, regardless of the merits of the case, the costs or whether it was needed in the first place. I'll paraphrase a saying that has become all too common ..... "won't some think of the blind people"?