Say goodbye to Mustang's sequential turn signals

[AutobahnSHO]

No one has come out and used the term, but reading all eight pages, it seems that it is the consensus....logical or not.

uh, no.
It might seem that way because of having to argue against the irrational viewpoint so hard...

[AutobahnSHO]

If they magically fixed driver training tomorrow, what's wrong with red signals? If you can figure them out now, and suddenly everyon is as smart or smarter, then your apparent need for them goes away, as well. 

Not true in the slightest. No one ever said there was a "need" for amber lights.
Amber just Works Better. No matter how talented or stupid the driver is. No matter how well trained the Driver (or not,) it would be easier and safer for all turn signals to be a different color than the brake lights.

So far the only argument I've heard for keeping red is:
1- you're bowing to the idiotz by requiring amber (ok then all you Euro or Japanese car drivers.    )
2- aesthetics. Red looks cleaner, instead of plastering orange AND red on the back of the car..

To me aesthetics takes a backseat to facilitating traffic moving.

[ChrisV]

So if they magically fixed driver licensing and testing and training tomorrow, what's wrong with amber turn signals??

I was thinking about this question as I drove home, and I realized something. Some of you, especially AutobahnSHO, seem to misunderstand me. There are apparently words in my posts that you see and read that aren't on MY screen... And when responding to this post earlier, I read a word in it that isn't there.

I read, "what's wrong with requiring amber turn signals?"

When it actually said, "what's wrong with amber turn signals?"

Two very different questions. The first would have been an actual response to what I was saying. The second, however, is a response to something I never said at all. So let me clarify...

There is nothing wrong with amber turn signals. I don't have a problem with amber turn signals, I like well executed amber turn signals, and have them on both my Range Rover and BMW (though I did change out the fugly old amber colored lens for a smoked clear with amber bulb).

And just to make it clearer, I'll emphasize the statement: I'm not arguing against amber turn signals!

There.

I'm arguing against an additional regulation that, at this point, and for at least the next 20 years, will not fix the problem it aims to fix.

If it's being implemented because stupid drivers that have been coddled by the nanny state and can no longer think for themselves cannot tell if the person in front of them is signaling a turn or braking because the car has red lenses, this regulation will not change that because the tens of millions of cars that already exist with red lenses will still be on the roads in front of them. Since the situation they are in will not materially change from the way it is NOW (i.e. some cars will have red turn signals, some will have amber turn signals, and most will not even USE their turn signals), then if safety is the REAL goal, fix the actual problem!

[Tave]

The "actual problem" is that the red/red design is inferior.

[JWC]

The "actual problem" is that the red/red design is inferior.

Does this new regulation change the distance from which the lamp is visible?  If not, and brightness is regulated by the DOT, what does it really change?

When you changed your tail lamps on the BMW, did you purchase DOT approved lamps or did the box say "off-road use only"?  If it had no DOT approval code or stated off-road only, you're in violation of the law and can be required to return it to original specification.

[Tave]

Does this new regulation change the distance from which the lamp is visible?  If not, and brightness is regulated by the DOT, what does it really change?

The color.

[omicron]

Amber indicators have been mandatory here for many, many years now - on all cars since the early '80s, I should think, so there are relatively few cars on the road these days with red turning lights. I can absolutely say that there have been occasions when I've been travelling behind a older car with combined red brake/turning lights, seen the slow flash of red light, and have had to make a quick mental recalculation as to what exactly is going on. By no means am I talking about crucial seconds of distraction (at which point I crash into the 1965 Falcon in front of me), but where normally a flashing orange light ahead of me results in an instinctive readiness to brake, check mirrors or change into another lane, a flashing red light requires a little bit more time and conscious thought to adjust.

It's certainly likely that if you're travelling so close to the car in front that crash avoidance is impossible before you work out the intentions of a car with a flashing red light on one side, then no amber light could have saved you. With that said, the split-second of mental re-adjustment needed to decipher a flashing red light as opposed to an amber one is a split-second longer than I'd like.

[Cookie Monster]

If a flashing amber light instinctively tells you to brake, why doesn't a flashing red one?

[omicron]

If a flashing amber light instinctively tells you to brake, why doesn't a flashing red one?

Because I'd see it once a year, if that. And we're talking degrees of milliseconds here, mind.

[omicron]

Just so it's on the record, the sequential turn signals of Thunderbirds and Cougars of the late '60s are impossibly marvellous and should be celebrated, irrespective of all the dolts in Hyundai Excels bouncing merrily off their rear bumpers due to an inability to apply logic to driving situations.

[Byteme]

Maybe an article with some facts instead of posts postulating draconian political plots will bring some rationality to the discussion.  I for one favor a regulation that reduces the chance of some bozo rearending me for little or no additional cost.

Those that see dark political overtones probably need to change to a different brand of tinfoil for their hats.




The Truth About Turn Signals
By Daniel J. Stern
June 27, 2009

What color should rear turn signals be? Last Autumn, NHTSA released tentative findings that amber (?yellow?) rear turn signals are up to 28 percent more effective than red ones, depending on the type of crash. Now they?ve released preliminary findings that vehicles with amber rear indicators are overall 5.3 percent less likely to be hit from behind than otherwise-identical vehicles with red ones. The benefit compares, says the report, to the enduring 4.3 percent crash avoidance benefit of the center 3rd brake light (CHMSL) mandated in 1986. This tippytoeing through the tulips with tentative and preliminary findings seems more than a little precious. Amber rear signals are required in Europe, the UK, Australia, Japan, China, and virtually the entire rest of the industrialized world outside North America; red ones have been banned for thirty-five to fifty years.

Data have been accumulating in favor of amber since at least the 1970s; Volkswagen?s 1977 study concluded amber signals are better?though this hasn?t stopped them equipping current American models with red ones. Twelve years ago the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute determined that following drivers react significantly faster and more accurately to the brake lamps of a leading vehicle with amber rear signals versus red.

American regulators, alone in the world, have for decades dismissed the notion of restricting stylistic freedom with a requirement for amber, so automakers play with rear turn signal color as an insouciant styling gimmick in the NAFTA market: amber this year, red next year, back to amber at the next facelift. And not just on Tauruses, Intrepids and Silverados; current Audis, BMWs, Smarts, and Mercedes have red rear signals in America, as did the facelifted first-generation MINI.

In America, red rear turn signals can be implemented by flashing the brake lamps (steady dim for tail, steady bright for brake, flashing bright for turn), or they can be separate from the brake lamps. With combination brake/tail/turn lamps, simultaneously braking and signaling yields two-thirds of a full brake lamp indication, and a faulty lamp takes out two or three functions.

With separate red brake and turn signals, you have identical?and dueling?red lights right next to each other. The only rear lighting functions that share a color and intensity range under international ECE regulations are the brake light and the rear fog light, and the regs require their closest lit edges to be at least 10 cm (4 inches) apart. There?s no such separation requirement for brake lights and red turn signals in American regulations.

If the driver?s foot is on the brake pedal of a current Rabbit, Jetta, Passat, Sonata, X5, Q5, Accord coupe, Camry, or any of many other recent vehicles, his turn signal is practically invisible until you?re sucking his tailpipe. If he?s getting on and off the brake while signaling, just forget about unscrambling a coherent message from his rear lights in the fractional moment available at speed in traffic.

Implementing amber rear signals has never been tricky or costly or difficult, even within physical constraints. American cars were being successfully sent to Australia with amber rear signals and without ugly mutilation back when Ward and June were scolding Beaver Cleaver for leaving his bike in the rain. Back then, countries like Australia accommodated US cars with space for only two rear light colors by allowing reversing lights to be amber or white: signal for a parallel parking job, shift to reverse, and one amber light burned steadily while the one on the signal side flashed. Meanwhile, both red brake lights lit steadily. Not a bad solution, this; by dint of amber parking lights and daytime running lights, everyone in America knows that a pair of steady amber lights means you?re looking at the approaching end of the vehicle. But now, it?s tough to think of any car design that lacks ample space for red brake/tail, amber turn, white reverse, and perhaps red rear fog light functions.

Canada has long wanted to mandate amber, but is effectively handcuffed to US regulations by the threat of free-trade court action. An international effort to develop a single global lighting equipment standard based on best practices worldwide?it would have saved money and improved safety, and compliance would?ve been optional?was single-handedly killed a couple of years ago by NHTSA?s insistence that the rest of the world would have to roll back their regulations to accept red rear signals. Best practice . . . ?

But that was apparently then, and this is now: NHTSA requests public comment on their preliminary findings. Perhaps it?s time to think about admitting that the rest of the world might not have been completely out to lunch. Who knows where this could lead . . . mandatory side-on visibility of turn signals? Naw, no real benefit there. Right, NHTSA?

 

[NomisR]

If a flashing amber light instinctively tells you to brake, why doesn't a flashing red one?

Well, both would tell me to slow down.. it's just how much.  If it's someone with a hazard on, it means I would most likely need to slow to a stop.

But if it's someone that's just randomly tapping on the brakes because of a upcoming curve, which does not justify slowing majority of the time, then I would like to not slow if I don't really have to.  And the thing is, I notice because assholes like to randomly step on their brakes, it causes unnecessary slowdown and traffic.  The amber lights would not alleviate things as proper driver's training would, but it would simply reduce confusion.

With this said though, I do agree in part to what ChrisV said.. the government should not be the ones that dictates this type of stuff, but if it's an industry wide agreement, it would be great.  But amber lights is still a good thing.

[Raza]

What about people with hazards on, but you can only see one of the indicators?  It looks like a turn signal!  Hazards should have to be a different bulb and color.  Purple.  Neon purple hazards. 

What if I forget my left from my right?  Indicator lights should have to read out visually "TURNING RIGHT" or "TURNING LEFT".

But what if you can't read?  The indicators must be accompanied by an audible turning alert, loud enough to be heard over a car stereo.  All cars should be fitted with rooftop PA systems that say "TURNING LEFT" and "TURNING RIGHT" at near deafening volumes.

Also, what about people who turn on their signals too early?  I suggest we have a two stage turn signal.  One click for turning, and a second click for turning immediately.  Of course, these would have to come with their own two stage indicator lights "TURNING RIGHT...IMMEDIATELY" and "TURNING LEFT...IMMEDIATELY".  And more obviously, they would need their own auditory signal. 

However, if you miss your turn, you should indicate that you missed your turn.  Therefore, I propose a three stage turn signal, with corresponding lights and auditory alerts.  "MISSED TURN" emblazoned across the back of your car in fluorescent pink.  "I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY I MISSED MY TURN AND WILL NEED TO MAKE A U-TURN WHENEVER POSSIBLE" from the rooftop PA system. 

Furthermore, I propose a road curvature signal that glows indigo when you turn your wheel in either direction greater than 3.7 degrees. 

[NomisR]

What about people with hazards on, but you can only see one of the indicators?  It looks like a turn signal!  Hazards should have to be a different bulb and color.  Purple.  Neon purple hazards. 

What if I forget my left from my right?  Indicator lights should have to read out visually "TURNING RIGHT" or "TURNING LEFT".

But what if you can't read?  The indicators must be accompanied by an audible turning alert, loud enough to be heard over a car stereo.  All cars should be fitted with rooftop PA systems that say "TURNING LEFT" and "TURNING RIGHT" at near deafening volumes.

Also, what about people who turn on their signals too early?  I suggest we have a two stage turn signal.  One click for turning, and a second click for turning immediately.  Of course, these would have to come with their own two stage indicator lights "TURNING RIGHT...IMMEDIATELY" and "TURNING LEFT...IMMEDIATELY".  And more obviously, they would need their own auditory signal. 

However, if you miss your turn, you should indicate that you missed your turn.  Therefore, I propose a three stage turn signal, with corresponding lights and auditory alerts.  "MISSED TURN" emblazoned across the back of your car in fluorescent pink.  "I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY I MISSED MY TURN AND WILL NEED TO MAKE A U-TURN WHENEVER POSSIBLE" from the rooftop PA system. 

Furthermore, I propose a road curvature signal that glows indigo when you turn your wheel in either direction greater than 3.7 degrees. 

I saw there should be tracks for all the cars.. and controlled by computers, it'll eliminate 99% of collisions on freeways.

[ifcar]

"Also, what about people who turn on their signals too early?  I suggest we have a two stage turn signal.  One click for turning, and a second click for turning immediately. "

I wouldn't object to that idea. The turn signal equivalent to yellow in a stoplight. Useful if you're indicating a turn into a driveway right before an upcoming cross street, for example.

[hotrodalex]

I saw there should be tracks for all the cars.. and controlled by computers, it'll eliminate 99% of collisions on freeways.

I say we just kill everyone else and then the roads will be empty for us to enjoy.

And it would solve almost every other problem in the world, too.

[NomisR]

I say we just kill everyone else and then the roads will be empty for us to enjoy.

And it would solve almost every other problem in the world, too.

+1

I'm for that.

[JWC]

What's the purpose again.  As I read the last group of comments, including the article which states that amber is 28% more effective depending on the crash , I'm thinking there is one common denominator here and it isn't the car in front of you.

If the vehicle in front of you is slowing down, you need to slow down, not try to decide to pass left or right.   There actually may be a reason they are slowing down.  

If the vehicle in front of you has a flashing red or amber light, you need to slow down...not pass left or right.

The common thread in most comments here is to eliminate "confusion".  Confusion is going to exist until you can read the mind of the other driver or until, as someone suggested, computers take over driving.  

And, computers will take over driving.  If 5.3% is such a big deal that Congress wants to mandate the color of a turn signal, then the reduction of crashes once computers are determined to be safer than humans will be mandated....and we are not that far off.  The technology is already here, it just needs to be implemented.

[ChrisV]

Maybe an article with some facts instead of posts postulating draconian political plots will bring some rationality to the discussion.  I for one favor a regulation that reduces the chance of some bozo rearending me for little or no additional cost.

Here's an idea. If YOU don't want someone bouncing off of YOU, them make YOUR turn signals amber, or buy one of the many thousands of cars on the road with amber lenses. But unless you force every car that currently has red lenses to change to amber, you're NOT really changing anything for the general public. And you're NOT changing the chances for someone already driving a car with red lenses.

See how that works?

See, I could see the argument for it if 1) it got rid of all red lenses out there, and overturned some non-existent law mandating red turn signals, and 2) there wasn't already a choice you could personally make for your own safety by choosing a car that already has amber turn signals.

If you currently have a car with amber lenses, this won't change anything for you, because you're already "protected" by your amber turn signals. If you currently have a car with RED lenses, this won't change anything for you either.

So saying YOU want this regulation to help YOUR safety is, well, a logical fallacy, John, because it won't do any such thing.

[JWC]

There should be no reason for this to be introduced as a law or regulation.

People buy cars all the time based on their safety rating.  If people stopped buying cars with red turn signals or integrated turn signal/brake lamps, manufacturers would stop selling them.

It is that simple.  No need to spend probably a million dollars introducing a bill before Congress to make people buy cars with amber signals.

[ChrisV]

If the vehicle in front of you is slowing down, you need to slow down, not try to decide to pass left or right.   There actually may be a reason they are slowing down. 

If the vehicle in front of you has a flashing red or amber light, you need to slow down...not pass left or right.

The common thread in most comments here is to eliminate "confusion". 

As I said before, if someone ahead of you is signalling something, be it turn or stop, the proper response is not, "I don't know what to do, I think I'll hit them." The proper response is to prepare yourself to slow or stop to allow them to do what they are signalling to do. If you're so close to them that the millisecond of confusion you end up with is too much for you to avoid the crash, you would have hit them anyhow, as you were too close and too fast for conditions!

And of course, all this talk over turn signal color is moot for the, I swear, the majority of drivers who simply don't bother signaling at all!

Again, I have nothing against amber lights, and am not even arguing against them being "safer." Only that this regulation, at this time, does nothing, and cannot do anything, to solve the safety issue it purports to solve.

[NomisR]

And of course, all this talk over turn signal color is moot for the, I swear, the majority of drivers who simply don't bother signaling at all!

Again, I have nothing against amber lights, and am not even arguing against them being "safer." Only that this regulation, at this time, does nothing, and cannot do anything, to solve the safety issue it purports to solve.

True.. now if we can have training to teach people the importance of signally.

Have you ever accidentally used it at the track before? 

[JWC]

True.. now if we can have training to teach people the importance of signally.

Have you ever accidentally used it at the track before? 

I've used the turn signal when pulling forward out of my driveway...I've also hit the signals when pulling around the dealership.

Maybe someday they can develop a turn signal that will come on when the steering wheel is moved a few degrees from center. 

[NomisR]

I've used the turn signal when pulling forward out of my driveway...I've also hit the signals when pulling around the dealership.

Maybe someday they can develop a turn signal that will come on when the steering wheel is moved a few degrees from center. 

I always use turn signals while on the street whether needed or not just in case there's someone that would actually see it where I don't see them.  It helps everyone.

[Byteme]

Here's an idea. If YOU don't want someone bouncing off of YOU, them make YOUR turn signals amber, or buy one of the many thousands of cars on the road with amber lenses. But unless you force every car that currently has red lenses to change to amber, you're NOT really changing anything for the general public. And you're NOT changing the chances for someone already driving a car with red lenses.

See how that works?

See, I could see the argument for it if 1) it got rid of all red lenses out there, and overturned some non-existent law mandating red turn signals, and 2) there wasn't already a choice you could personally make for your own safety by choosing a car that already has amber turn signals.

If you currently have a car with amber lenses, this won't change anything for you, because you're already "protected" by your amber turn signals. If you currently have a car with RED lenses, this won't change anything for you either.

So saying YOU want this regulation to help YOUR safety is, well, a logical fallacy, John, because it won't do any such thing.

So using that same logic why invest in cancer research since it won't help those who already have incurablecancer and those who won't get it won't benefit anyway.

[Cookie Monster]

Most of the time I don't even pay attention to the color of the taillights of the car in front of me. If I see that the distance between me and the other car is getting smaller, I hit the brakes or change lanes if it's safe to do so.

I don't understand how this is so hard. If the car in front of you is starting to appear larger and larger, hit the brakes.

[hotrodalex]

Most of the time I don't even pay attention to the color of the taillights of the car in front of me. If I see that the distance between me and the other car is getting smaller, I hit the brakes or change lanes if it's safe to do so.

I don't understand how this is so hard. If the car in front of you is starting to appear larger and larger, hit the brakes.

I judge the distance and act accordingly. Whether they are braking, signaling, or just driving slower.

[hotrodalex]

Does this law count for tractor trailers as well? They have completely red taillights.

[Byteme]

I judge the distance and act accordingly. Whether they are braking, signaling, or just driving slower.

You do know that the ability to correctly judge the distance from a light is, in part dependent on the color of the light.  All else being equal, warm colors, like red appear closer than cool colors, like blue.

[hotrodalex]

You do know that the ability to correctly judge the distance from a light is, in part dependent on the color of the light.  All else being equal, warm colors, like red appear closer than cool colors, like blue.

So we should keep red turn signals, as they will make the car appear closer and make you think you have to slow down more!