Say goodbye to Mustang's sequential turn signals

[Eye of the Tiger]

Those look ricey.

[Laconian]

Those look ricey.

It's a better solution than the asymmetrical zit on that Jetta.

[hotrodalex]

It's a better solution than the asymmetrical zit on that Jetta.

And if it's done nicely enough it's fine.

[Cookie Monster]

It's a better solution than the asymmetrical zit on that Jetta.

I kind of like it.

[nickdrinkwater]

I always thought it was pretty ridiculous how some cars in the US have a shared brake light and turn signal (indicator as we call it here).  It just increases the potential for confusion, especially if one is braking and signalling at the same time.  It also smacks of cheapness.

[ChrisV]

I always thought it was pretty ridiculous how some cars in the US have a shared brake light and turn signal (indicator as we call it here).  It just increases the potential for confusion, especially if one is braking and signalling at the same time.  It also smacks of cheapness.

The Porsche 356 had that. It's been normal on cars since the thirties. If you're braking and signalling at the same time, then one light is flashing and one is on steady. It's really not that confusing. My '63 Comet has shared brake lights and turn signals. Won't matter what new cars are regulated to have, as it will still be that way (and no center high mounted brake light, either). So people will still ahve to figure it out, just like they do with any other car.

Sorry, but if this is too confusing for you:



...then you need to get off the road, 'cause youre not smart enough to drive.

The point is, it's not unsafe, and these cars are still on the road all over the place. So no matter what the NEW car regulations are, you will still have to be able to figure it out when you come upon one of these cars. So really, what do the regulations accomplish? Nothing.

A bigger problem is simply the lack of using turn signals in the first place. It doesn't matter WHAT color the turn signals are if the person doesn't use them.

[Tave]

"Cars from 1930 are more unsafe than cars today, so therefore we shouldn't worry about making cars safer, because human beings drove cars in 1930."


Is that really your argument?

[ChrisV]

"Cars from 1930 are more unsafe than cars today, so therefore we shouldn't worry about making cars safer, because human beings drove cars in 1930."


Is that really your argument?

*sigh* "Hi, my name is Tave, and im as ignropant as a stump."

Is that really your argument?

The regulations don't get rid of the "problem." In fact, they really don't change anything, except prove how fucking retarded people are, and that they are being rewarded for BEING stupid.

I'm tired of laws/regualtions that are supposed to fix a safety problem when they 1) do nothing of the sort and 2) don't address the REAL problem, and that's that we won't take 5 seconds to start to teach people to pay attention and take fucking responsibility for themselves. We just keep rewarding the lowest common denominator, in return forcing everyone to dumb down to the lowest common denominator themselves.

As I said, these cars are still out there on the road, and since they've been this way from the thirties UNTIL RIGHT THE FUCK NOW, then you will still have to deal with them on the  road on a daily basis. If you still have to deal with them anyway, then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE LAW ACTUALLY DOING FOR YOU??? NOTHING. Jesus, how can I make this any fucking clearer?  

[Tave]

I'm tired of laws/regualtions that are supposed to fix a safety problem when they 1) do nothing of the sort and 2) don't address the REAL problem,

Laws governing car lights address one problem only: car lights. Those laws have been around for a long time. My guess is that these kinds of rules will continued to be tweaked and prodded as the years go along.

As I said, these cars are still out there on the road, and since they've been this way from the thirties UNTIL RIGHT THE FUCK NOW, then you will still have to deal with them on the  road on a daily basis. If you still have to deal with them anyway, then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE LAW ACTUALLY DOING FOR YOU??? NOTHING. Jesus, how can I make this any fucking clearer?  

So that is your argument.

Would you say the same thing about seat belts?

[ChrisV]

Would you say the same thing about seat belts?

I would say that there should be no law mandating them. Just like I would say that there should be no law mandating helmets.

If you hit a car because YOU confused a brake light and a turn signal, when hundreds of millions of drivers have no problem with it, it's YOUR fault, not the signal's fault.

The signal isn't the problem, it's lack of personal responsibility. Until we address that, no amount of legislating the lowest common denominator will fix that.

[Tave]

I would say that there should be no law mandating them.

Mandating their use or presence?

[AutobahnSHO]

So besides the argument that drivers should be smarter, what else is the issue w/ amber turn signals?

There's really NO reason to NOT change. It's obviously going to be safer until you can figure out a way to train all the Tards or get them from behind the wheel.

Let's say you're following a line of cars. Three or four cars ahead you see a red light flash a few times, then not. Then it flashes a few times again. You can't see anything but one corner of that car.
--Is it a brake light or blinker?  IF we always had amber blinkers you'd KNOW it's a brakelight.

(And NO ONE is arguing we should change the millions of red-blinker cars out there. Ooooh so we'll have some "not as safe" cars out there. So what.)

[hotrodalex]

So besides the argument that drivers should be smarter, what else is the issue w/ amber turn signals?

There's really NO reason to NOT change. It's obviously going to be safer until you can figure out a way to train all the Tards or get them from behind the wheel.

Let's say you're following a line of cars. Three or four cars ahead you see a red light flash a few times, then not. Then it flashes a few times again. You can't see anything but one corner of that car.
--Is it a brake light or blinker?  IF we always had amber blinkers you'd KNOW it's a brakelight.

(And NO ONE is arguing we should change the millions of red-blinker cars out there. Ooooh so we'll have some "not as safe" cars out there. So what.)

Why does it matter if you are following in a line of cars? If the line starts to slow down, you slow down. Whether it's for the person braking or turning, if the line slows down then you slow down.

I don't have a problem with amber turn signals, but I don't see a reason to pass more legislation to change them. Especially when people don't use them in the first place.

[Tave]

I don't have a problem with amber turn signals, but I don't see a reason to pass more legislation to change them. Especially when people don't use them in the first place.

From what I understand, this is a revision to existing equipment regulations.

[r0tor]

i always thought red turn signals screamed cheap and ignorant anyway -shrug-

[2o6]

Why does it matter if you are following in a line of cars? If the line starts to slow down, you slow down. Whether it's for the person braking or turning, if the line slows down then you slow down.

I don't have a problem with amber turn signals, but I don't see a reason to pass more legislation to change them. Especially when people don't use them in the first place.

I think people are not unified in this thread.

1. People aren't talking about retrofitting old cars, but simply adding the amber signal lights into new cars.

2. People aren't talking about the car directly in front of you on city streets, they're talking about the freeway and usually at night. Also,  the terrain usually plays a big factor in this.

3. It's very cheap to design in amber signals, especially on small cars. Many Compact(sub) and midsizers are "world" cars, and thus amber signals are required in different locales. It would simplify production to have a unified standard on taillights.

From what I understand, this is a revision to existing equipment regulations.

EDIT: Yes, it is. I misunderstood that post.

[USA_Idol]

If the turn signal is given it's own bulb/location in the taillight assembly (i.e. independent of the main running/brake light), what difference does the color make?   

[2o6]

If the turn signal is given it's own bulb/location in the taillight assembly (i.e. independent of the main running/brake light), what difference does the color make?   

It's easier to see and distinguish.

[hotrodalex]

I think people are not unified in this thread.

1. People aren't talking about retrofitting old cars, but simply adding the amber signal lights into new cars.

2. People aren't talking about the car directly in front of you on city streets, they're talking about the freeway and usually at night. Also,  the terrain usually plays a big factor in this.

3. It's very cheap to design in amber signals, especially on small cars. Many Compact(sub) and midsizers are "world" cars, and thus amber signals are required in different locales. It would simplify production to have a unified standard on taillights.



EDIT: Yes, it is. I misunderstood that post.

I still have never had a problem with it. Again, it's fine if they think they have to change it, but I still think it's a waste of time.

[USA_Idol]

It's easier to see and distinguish.

Even if the turn signal color is identical to the brake light, it's an entirely different bulb in a different location.  Unless you have seriously impaired vision (and shouldn't be driving in the first place)...how can that possibly be confused with the brake light?

[AutobahnSHO]

Why does it matter if you are following in a line of cars? If the line starts to slow down, you slow down. Whether it's for the person braking or turning, if the line slows down then you slow down.

IT WAS A SILLY EXAMPLE. Thanks for over-analyzing with the obvious.
If I see brake lights several cars up (before even the three in front of me slow down,) I can let off the gas and slow sooner. Building up some safety space. 

[GoCougs]

The integral brake/blinker was always a bad design IMO. However, I do not advocate a law specifying otherwise.

[AutobahnSHO]

Even if the turn signal color is identical to the brake light, it's an entirely different bulb in a different location.  Unless you have seriously impaired vision (and shouldn't be driving in the first place)...how can that possibly be confused with the brake light?

Uh, no. At least half of red rear turn signals are the same light as the brake light.

[2o6]

The integral brake/blinker was always a bad design IMO. However, I do not advocate a law specifying otherwise.

You don't advocate laws regulating anything.

[hotrodalex]

You don't advocate laws regulating anything.

If it ain't broke don't fix it?

[2o6]

If it ain't broke don't fix it?

And nothing will advance.


If anything, this mandate would simplify production costs as well as helping some drivers on the road who have problems distinguishing tails and signal lights.

[Cookie Monster]

And nothing will advance.


If anything, this mandate would simplify production costs as well as helping some drivers on the road who have problems distinguishing tails and signal lights.

Said drivers should not be on the road then.

[2o6]

Said drivers should not be on the road then.

But they are, and amber signal lights are mandated in other countries as well.

[Tave]

The integral brake/blinker was always a bad design IMO. However, I do not advocate a law specifying otherwise.

You don't have the option. Car lighting is already regulated and has been for decades.

[GoCougs]

Unbelievable - don't you nitwits have anything better to do than ankle bite and otherwise kill 'Spin bytes???