Say goodbye to Mustang's sequential turn signals

[Byteme]

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!

Might make you panic stop and get rearended by someone too.

No, it's a fact and a factor, although a minor factor.  I just threw it out for general knowledge's sake

[NomisR]

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!

All cars should be red.. and make the head lights red too so they don't blind people.

[ChrisV]

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.

No, John. That analogy fails on many levels.

In order for it to have any bearing on the argument, these conditions would have to exist:

1) There aren't any amber turn signals on the market or on the road now.
2) The current law said only red turn signals can be used.
3) Anyone anywhere said you can't or shouldn't have amber turn signals now or ever.


Since none of those conditions are met, then your analogy fails.

Nice try, however.

But again, I'll repost your statment:

"I for one favor a regulation that reduces the chance of some bozo rearending me for little or no additional cost"

...and ask you, since YOU want this regulation to make YOU safer, how will it make YOU safer? Do you have amber turn signals now? If so, how will this regulation make YOU safer? If you do not have amber turn signals, is anyone preventing you or your family from having them now or in the future, and will this regulation change that? Only talking about YOU, since you made it clear YOU want this regulation to make YOU safer.

Respond to my actual points instead of trotting out yet another "if it only saves one life" BS analogy.

[ChrisV]

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

And after a few years of this being standard, and the norm, when all of our cars are maintained in the manner they are currently, sensors start failing and they do what just happened on the DC Metro.

Good thing about that is that for our victim society, the blame for a big fatal accident like that can be pawned off on someone else, not you, the driver (who is, after all, a mere passenger)

[Tave]

No one is claiming that the tangible benefits will be instantaneous. Obviously it will take some time before the current vehicles with red lights are phased-out of use. I really don't understand why you're so hung up on that. The same thing happened, as Madman pointed out, when the center brakelight was made standard.

[ChrisV]

No one is claiming that the tangible benefits will be instantaneous. Obviously it will take some time before the current vehicles with red lights are phased-out of use. I really don't understand why you're so hung up on that. The same thing happened, as Madman pointed out, when the center brakelight was made standard.

Let me make this clearer: I don't like mandating any goddamn thing through piss poor, lowest common denominator regulations. ESPECIALLY under the guise of "safety."

I'm all for seatbelt use. I'm all for motorcycle helmet use. I'm against mandated seat belt and helmet laws. I think the CHMSL law is stupid.

If it's safety we're after, don't half ass it. Mandate that all cars, including existing ones, be painted neon safety yellow, speed limited to 25 mph, and made of so0me sort of inflatable marshmallow material.

People don't WANT actual safety. They want the goddamn ILLUSION of safety, so long as it keeps them from having to think too hard about it ("I have no problem differentiating between turn signals and brake lights on all red lights now. It'd just be nice to not have to think about it"). Yeah, well, it'd be nice to have a few million dollars and my own private island, too. But that's not a good enough reason to make a regulation about it!

[Byteme]

No, John. That analogy fails on many levels.

In order for it to have any bearing on the argument, these conditions would have to exist:

1) There aren't any amber turn signals on the market or on the road now.
2) The current law said only red turn signals can be used.
3) Anyone anywhere said you can't or shouldn't have amber turn signals now or ever.


Since none of those conditions are met, then your analogy fails.

Nice try, however.

But again, I'll repost your statment:

"I for one favor a regulation that reduces the chance of some bozo rearending me for little or no additional cost"

...and ask you, since YOU want this regulation to make YOU safer, how will it make YOU safer? Do you have amber turn signals now? If so, how will this regulation make YOU safer? If you do not have amber turn signals, is anyone preventing you or your family from having them now or in the future, and will this regulation change that? Only talking about YOU, since you made it clear YOU want this regulation to make YOU safer.

Respond to my actual points instead of trotting out yet another "if it only saves one life" BS analogy.

Given your statement "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." the anology is perfectly valid.  Cancer research today does nothing to cure change anything immediatly. If you are looking at cancer prevention it might reduce the death rate in thye future, but those who have cancer now will continue to have it.  Same thing here.  No one expects the entire inventory of automobiles to change overnight with every car suddenly sporting amber rear turn signals.  I'd suggest you read the study  and then come back to the discussion.

[Tave]

Or, "There's no reason to plant this tree in my yard, because it won't be fully grown when I wake up tomorrow morning."

[ChrisV]

Given your statement "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." the anology is perfectly valid.  Cancer research today does nothing to cure change anything immediatly. If you are looking at cancer prevention it might reduce the death rate in thye future, but those who have cancer now will continue to have it.  Same thing here.  No one expects the entire inventory of automobiles to change overnight with every car suddenly sporting amber rear turn signals.  I'd suggest you read the study  and then come back to the discussion.

Again, that woudl be tru if there were no amber lights avaialbe right now!

You continue to ignore what you said about this regulation: You want it because it would make YOU safe. I want to ask how?

NOT REQUIRING AMBER LIGHTS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE AMBER LIGHTS. That's what YOUR analogy is about, and it's a critical goddamn  difference!

To use your analogy, I'd have to be arguing that making amber lights is pointless. I'm arguing that REQUIRING them is.

Even closer to your analogy: it'd be like there being dozens of cures of cancer on the market right now, and me arguing that regulation requiring research into curing cancer is pointless.

Or, "There's no reason to plant this tree in my yard, because it won't be fully grown when I wake up tomorrow morning."

And that one is even more retarded. It'd be more like arguing that if you have 27 trees in your yard right now, regulations requiring planting another tree so you can have a tree would be pointless.

[Tave]

And that one is even more retarded. It'd be more like arguing that if you have 27 trees in your yard right now, regulations requiring planting another tree so you can have a tree would be pointless.

unless you force every car that currently has red lenses to change to amber, you're NOT really changing anything for the general public.

"Unless that tree grows 40 feet in one night, there's no reason to plant it."

[Madman]

What really pisses me off about this whole debate is the fact there is even a debate in the first place.  The REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD requires amber turn signals!!!  Why does America always feel they have to reinvent the wheel?  If an idea works, then use it.  Even if a bunch of "furriners" thought of it first.

It is exactly this tendency of America to go it's own way with everything which put America (and American companies) at a competitive disadvantage.  Always having to have two sets of (often conflicting) standards is a royal pain in the posterior for everyone.  This perfectly illustrates why America needs to pull it's head out of it's arse and sign onto the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Forum_for_Harmonization_of_Vehicle_Regulations

It's time we stop pretending to be the centre of the universe and get in step with the rest of the planet!


Cheers,
Madman of the People

[AutobahnSHO]

What really pisses me off about this whole debate is the fact there is even a debate in the first place.  The REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD requires amber turn signals!!!  Why does America always feel they have to reinvent the wheel?  If an idea works, then use it.  Even if a bunch of "furriners" thought of it first.

Ha now they'll cry about "not wanting the rest of the sissy world to mandate our standards".
It's INCONCEIVABLE how crazy this thread is.

[ifcar]

What really pisses me off about this whole debate is the fact there is even a debate in the first place.  The REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD requires amber turn signals!!!  Why does America always feel they have to reinvent the wheel?  If an idea works, then use it.  Even if a bunch of "furriners" thought of it first.

It is exactly this tendency of America to go it's own way with everything which put America (and American companies) at a competitive disadvantage.  Always having to have two sets of (often conflicting) standards is a royal pain in the posterior for everyone.  This perfectly illustrates why America needs to pull it's head out of it's arse and sign onto the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Forum_for_Harmonization_of_Vehicle_Regulations

It's time we stop pretending to be the centre of the universe and get in step with the rest of the planet!


Cheers,
Madman of the People

You want our government to legislate away our freedoms based on what a bunch of socialists are doing? Those countries don't give you guns either; some example THEY are. [/sarcasm]

[Byteme]

Again, that woudl be tru if there were no amber lights avaialbe right now!
Wrong.  The study accounts for the fact that they are available onmany cars now.

You continue to ignore what you said about this regulation: You want it because it would make YOU safe. I want to ask how?
Not only me.  I'm looking beyond my own small space on this plannet and welcome changes that make others safe as well.
NOT REQUIRING AMBER LIGHTS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE AMBER LIGHTS. That's what YOUR analogy is about, and it's a critical goddamn  difference!

To use your analogy, I'd have to be arguing that making amber lights is pointless. I'm arguing that REQUIRING them is.
So a reduction in accidents is pointless? 

[JWC]

Wrong.  The study accounts for the fact that they are available onmany cars now.
Wouldn't it be less intrusive and cheaper to inform the public that amber is safer and let them choose?  If true, then the market will dictate the color of turn signals.

So a reduction in accidents is pointless?
Not only me.  I'm looking beyond my own small space on this plannet and welcome changes that make others safe as well.

Is that the sole reason for this?  Is this the precedent that you want our government to use to determine automobile regulations?  What ever study comes up and says "this is safer" we should do it?

Wouldn't the same be said for a national, very low speed limit?
Wouldn't the same be said for a national automobile design (think NASCAR and their car of tomorrow).

[Byteme]

Is that the sole reason for this?  Is this the precedent that you want our government to use to determine automobile regulations?  What ever study comes up and says "this is safer" we should do it?

Wouldn't the same be said for a national, very low speed limit?
Wouldn't the same be said for a national automobile design (think NASCAR and their car of tomorrow).

Not whatever study.  Let's step back for a moment and look at what is actually being proposed.

Scientific study determined that changing the color of rear turn signals from red to amber would result in less rear end collisions.

The cost of the change going forward is nominal.  Car companies change tail lights as styling changes all the time anyway.

There is no cost in regards to vehicle performance, freedom of movement, vehicle function or any other measurable parameter.

The projected benefits would certainly seem to far outweigh the projected costs.

Lowering the speed limit to say 30 MPH would undoubtably result in fewer deaths, but the costs in terms of lost productivity, man hours, etc are deemed unacceptable.  Changing tail light color, on the other hand, is inconsequential compared to the projected benefits.

The sole argument against seems to be "I don't want government telling me what to do".  Sorry, but that train left the station several centuries ago.

I wonder if the car companies have commented yet?  I suspect their comments would be positive since the change would mean they could probably use the same tail light assemblies for all cars sold anywhere in the world with the resultant reduced engineering, manufacturing, and inventory costs.

[ChrisV]

John, answer the question on why YOU said what YOU said about YOUR safety. Quit backpedalling.

It's safer not to drive. Should we mandate that too? It's safer to be in a foam bubble with 300 airbags and a mandated speed limit under 25 mph. Do you want that? It's SAFER after all, and will save lives! Everyone who argued against me should answer this honestly.

But the truth is you don't WANT actual safety. You want the ILLUSION of safety. But you have a line YOU won't allow them to cross, either.

How far do you want the government to intrude on our behalf? Where do you want it to stop? I don't care if it's safer or not. I DON'T WANT OUR GOVERNMENT MANDATING IT! That's not the same as not allowing a safer tech to come into being or be used. Why do you keep insisting that it is the same?

Here you go. Make this out of soft foam and lexan, limit it to 20 mph, with computer controlled, proximity sensor driven steering and brakes. And mandate that all current cars be replaced with these.



And if you want to carry more than one or two people, the same limitations can be mandated into this car:



No choice, as it's your safety we're looking out for.

[Tave]

Here you go. Make this out of soft foam and lexan, limit it to 20 mph, with computer controlled, proximity sensor driven steering and brakes. And mandate that all current cars be replaced with these.

Lowering the speed limit to say 30 MPH would undoubtably result in fewer deaths, but the costs in terms of lost productivity, man hours, etc are deemed unacceptable.  Changing tail light color, on the other hand, is inconsequential compared to the projected benefits.

[Byteme]

I DON'T WANT OUR GOVERNMENT MANDATING IT!

In that case perhaps you ought to quit what ever line of work you are currently in and run for public office where you can help mandate what ever change or lack of change you think people need.

In fact, aren't you a government employee now?   In the social security administration?  Or am I confusing you wth someone else?

[NomisR]

In that case perhaps you ought to quit what ever line of work you are currently in and run for public office where you can help mandate what ever change or lack of change you think people need.

In fact, aren't you a government employee now?   In the social security administration?  Or am I confusing you wth someone else?

I can see where he's coming from though.  If it's actually in the name of safety, all changes should be retroactive but since it's not, it's only an illusion of safety.  Also, the changes should come from within the industry, not something mandated by the government.  If the industry firmly believes in it, they would have done it. 

[Byteme]

I can see where he's coming from though.  If it's actually in the name of safety, all changes should be retroactive but since it's not, it's only an illusion of safety.  Also, the changes should come from within the industry, not something mandated by the government.  If the industry firmly believes in it, they would have done it. 

Actually so can I but that works only if you believ industry is always 100% of the time going to work in the best interest of the consumer.   

Industry's primary motivation is increasing shareholder value, i.e., profits.  Oftentimes attainment of that occurs to the detrement of the consumer.

And as I and other pointed out no one expects the full impact of the change to be immediate. There is obviously a large number of cars on the road today with red rear turn signals, that number will decline over time as those vehicles are scrapped and replaced with cars with amber turn signals.  Just because a result isn't immediate doesn't mean an action shouldn't be undertaken.  Under that rationale there would be no incentive to spend any money on R&D. 

[Tave]

I can see where he's coming from though.  If it's actually in the name of safety, all changes should be retroactive but since it's not, it's only an illusion of safety.  Also, the changes should come from within the industry, not something mandated by the government.  If the industry firmly believes in it, they would have done it.  

Regulations governing car lights are more about common sense and practicality, IMO. Chris doesn't seem to mind regs that require red brake lights, so I don't understand why amber turn signals are such an affront to his civil liberties.

[JWC]

Regulations governing car lights are more about common sense and practicality, IMO. Chris doesn't seem to mind regs that require red brake lights, so I don't understand why amber turn signals are such an affront to his civil liberties.

Actually, I just got home and was thinking something along this line.  Why make the turn signals amber?   If they are so much more visible, make the brake lamps amber.

Actually so can I but that works only if you believ industry is always 100% of the time going to work in the best interest of the consumer.   

Industry's primary motivation is increasing shareholder value, i.e., profits.  Oftentimes attainment of that occurs to the detrement of the consumer.

As I pointed out earlier though, if the consumer only bought cars with amber turn signals, the manufacturers would get the idea.  It is like five star safety ratings...people buy what they think is safe or safer.   At one time you could buy products without the UL seal, but no one did because they wanted to purchase the safest product they could afford.

This is also why SUV's took over the market.  Even if the SUV wasn't as safe as a comparable station wagon, the illusion was that it indeed was safer.  Last fall, the media's mantra for the reason GM, Ford, and Chrysler was going under was because they did not offer cars the public wanted....when the reality was an SUV was exactly what the public wanted, because they felt safer in that vehicle.  That is why Nissan, Honda, and Toyota started building SUV's for the US market.

[JWC]

And, if the government and all those concerned with the safety of turn signals really wanted to do something impressive, make indicators a requirement in outside rear view mirrors. 

[ifcar]

And, if the government and all those concerned with the safety of turn signals really wanted to do something impressive, make indicators a requirement in outside rear view mirrors. 

The difference is that amber turn signals costs next to nothing. This would be pricey.

[JWC]

The difference is that amber turn signals costs next to nothing. This would be pricey.

When it comes to safety, cost should not be a consideration.

[ifcar]

When it comes to safety, cost should not be a consideration.

Of course it is. A measure that improves safety while costing nothing is certainly superior to one that offers the same benefit while being very pricey.

[JWC]

Of course it is. A measure that improves safety while costing nothing is certainly superior to one that offers the same benefit while being very pricey.

The technology already exist for signals in mirrors, Ford has had them for years and it is a selling point.  Modifying a mirror to accommodate a turn signal would only cost a bit more than redesigning an entire lamp assembly to accept an amber lens.

Only the mirror glass has to be changed and an power circuit to an LED added.   To change the rear lamp, the whole lens needs to be redesigned and the electrical harness changed to re-route the turn signal.

Plus, when adding a trailer harness to the vehicle, you do not have to buy a very expensive module to accommodate the separate amber turn signal.

[NomisR]

And, if the government and all those concerned with the safety of turn signals really wanted to do something impressive, make indicators a requirement in outside rear view mirrors. 

It doesn't have to be outside rear view mirror.  A light at the front fender right behind the front wheels and before the front door would be sufficient, like the ones we see on European cars and cars in the Japanese market.. although they did remove them for US consumption.

[JWC]

It doesn't have to be outside rear view mirror.  A light at the front fender right behind the front wheels and before the front door would be sufficient, like the ones we see on European cars and cars in the Japanese market.. although they did remove them for US consumption.

I thought those were more for oncoming side traffic than anyone from behind. 

BTW, I will be adding those style lights to my 1971 Beetle when I get back to working on it.