Say goodbye to Mustang's sequential turn signals

[ifcar]

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.

You don't have to redesign your lights. This isn't going to take effect overnight. It would just be developed with a different design, likely not redesigned midcycle.

Adding an extra light outside the car does add up in cost, especially in cheap base cars without power mirrors.

[JWC]

You don't have to redesign your lights. This isn't going to take effect overnight. It would just be developed with a different design, likely not redesigned midcycle.

Adding an extra light outside the car does add up in cost, especially in cheap base cars without power mirrors.

That usually isn't how the government works.  They come up with an idea, then determine what year they want the "new" item to take affect and it is usually withing a year or two.  There will be plenty of redesigns.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

 

[ifcar]

That usually isn't how the government works.  They come up with an idea, then determine what year they want the "new" item to take affect and it is usually withing a year or two.  There will be plenty of redesigns.

Considering that they've only thought about possibly considering it so far, this is years and years into the future.

[ChrisV]

Considering that they've only thought about possibly considering it so far, this is years and years into the future.

Which is a good reason to nip it in the bud.

Speaking of being like Europe, new AutoWeek has an article on Britain's new fleet of city cars. Priuses outfitted with GPS equipped computers that control your throttle for you based on the speed limit on the street you are on, using proximity sensors so you don't just go at that speed into the back of a stopped car ahead of you (if it doesn't have one of these devices) and talks to other cars that DO have the devices so they don't get too close to each other. They want to implement this as mandatory on cars in the UK in the future because it'll save lives.

I mean, if it's starting in Europe, we need to get with the times, as Madman says. I mean, we did found this nation, and our ancestors moved to it, because they wanted to set up Europe II. And it's proven safer, so it must be a good thing.

Bah. Where's our CarSpin island where (I thought) we said we didn't want overbearing regulations?

[ChrisV]

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.

Not all of them were removed. My BMW has that light.

[NomisR]

Not all of them were removed. My BMW has that light.

I think most European models retained them, but most Japanese model did not have them, I believe mostly due to them being manufactured in the US.

[MX793]

I think most European models retained them, but most Japanese model did not have them, I believe mostly due to them being manufactured in the US.

My car has a fender mounted turn signal light

[NomisR]

My car has a fender mounted turn signal light

I know my RSX didn't, Integra didn't.. I don't think any Honda had it.. I don't remember the Rx8 had it although all of them had it in their Japanese and European counterparts.  My Lotus did have it though.

[ChrisV]

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.

Because an additional regulation is not needed. Otherwise, we might as well have millions more unnecessary ones about everything, as everything we do can be dangerous. We should NOT be regulating common sense!

The reasoning being used to require this is faulty. It's based on laziness and fear. I mean, John's first statement said it all: he wants this regulation so HE will be safer from other people. Except it wont change anything for him. But that mentality is at the core of it. If you want to be safer, the option for you to be safer is out there. If enough people want it, then the market will make it for them. Then they get to have the choice.

The point is, if it's necessary so YOU don't get confused, then what are you going to do when you come upon a car not bound by those regulations? Are you going to get confused and crash into it? Or will you figure it out and go on with your day? And if you can do that then why is an additional regulation necessary?

I feel the same way about the CHMSL. There's still millions of cars out there that don't have them, 24 years later! You still have to deal with them as you would have before the regulation. And since the regulation was ostensibly so you could see brake lights through the back window of the car ahead of you, to get more warning than just the brake lights on the car ahead of you, how does that work with so many SUVs, pickups, tinted window minivans and the like that are still in front of you? It renders the CHSML useless until you're in a situation where you could see regular brake lights ANYHOW> It's retarded.

But it's the illusion of safety, and again, that's what you want. If you wanted REAL safety you'd simply stop driving, and lobby for everyone to stop driving. And until you do that, any regulation on top of the basic rules of the road is hypocritical at best.

Again Tave, at what line will YOU not cross between true safety and the illusion thereof? And if someone comes up on the other side of THAT line from YOU, will you just let it go because the other side doesn't "get it?"

[AutobahnSHO]

ChrisV, I totally see your point but you are letting a 10ounce consideration overpower a 50lb advantage.

It's not like amber signals would be a "new law."
They would be CHANGING EXISTING FEDERAL GUIDELINES WHICH ALREADY EXIST for the rules for rear turn signals.

---------------------------

Someone asked why not make the brake lights amber?
-because you would have to do it on EVERY car the same day. You can't mix and match old systems and new for that-
red for (100?) years marks the rear of a car. Amber is the front or turn signals.

[AutobahnSHO]

CHMSL is not "so you can see the car ahead of the car ahead of you."
Most cars have tinted windows and whatnot anyway.

The CHMSL is to eliminate driver cognitive confusion caused by red turn signals. It's ALWAYS a brake light and ONLY a brake light.
No wondering whether the person in front of you is turning on their lights, hazards, or blinker. It's visible right in the middle of the vehicle.

Now BEFORE you say, "well bring on the amber and eliminate the CHMSL" you might as well nanny the 90% of US drivers who are on the road around you- so THEY don't hit YOU.   

The point behind the amber signals is also that they would be only for one thing instead of the dual redlight- "brake vs. turn signal" issue.

[Madman]

My car has a fender mounted turn signal light

Mine do too.  Well, they do NOW, anyway.......

My US-spec Volvos didn't have them originally but the hole for the light was still there, under the little Volvo badge.  So I ordered the Euro-spec side repeaters, ran wires to the front indicators and popped them in.  They alert drivers in your blind spot (who are too far forward to see your tail lamps) when you signal to change lane.  Another idea which I think should be required here.  If I ever buy a car in future which doesn't have them, I will certainly fit them to that car, too.


Cheers,
Madman of the People

[AutobahnSHO]

Standard equipment on Taurus SHO (1989-1995?) and higher-trim Mercury Sables?

=Fender turn signal lights.

[Raza]

In three of my cars, my side turn signal has been on the wing mirrors.

[Byteme]

I mean, John's first statement said it all: he wants this regulation so HE will be safer from other people. Except it wont change anything for him.

Sure it does.  We have two daily drivers with red turn signals.  When they are traded and if thes regulation becomes effective my next cars will have amber turn signals.

Like I said in another topic in the Garage section, if you have a problem spell it out in a seperate topic in the general section.  If not, give it up.

[MX793]

I know my RSX didn't, Integra didn't.. I don't think any Honda had it.. I don't remember the Rx8 had it although all of them had it in their Japanese and European counterparts.  My Lotus did have it though.

Well, my car is made in Japan and is a "world car".  The North American built Mazda6 doesn't have them (neither the 1st gen nor the current, NA market only generation).  Most Hondas in the American market are built/assembled in North America, so it's not entirely surprising that most of them don't have the fender turn signals.

[JWC]

Sure it does.  We have two daily drivers with red turn signals.  When they are traded and if thes regulation becomes effective my next cars will have amber turn signals.

Why wait for legislation?  There are cars out there that already have amber signal lamps, and as the consumer, you get to choose.

[ChrisV]

Sure it does.  We have two daily drivers with red turn signals.  When they are traded and if thes regulation becomes effective my next cars will have amber turn signals.

As JWC said... You can get ambers now. No waiting. American cars have had amber on some models since '75. Many European and Japanese cars have had them, as well. Since the choice is available to you now, and has been since the '70s, how will the regulation help YOU, like YOU said it would?

As far back as '75, Ford had ambers on cars like the Granada in the US. Why wait? If you "need" them to feel safe, you can get them.



























 

[ChrisV]

CHMSL is not "so you can see the car ahead of the car ahead of you."
Most cars have tinted windows and whatnot anyway.

The CHMSL is to eliminate driver cognitive confusion caused by red turn signals. It's ALWAYS a brake light and ONLY a brake light.
No wondering whether the person in front of you is turning on their lights, hazards, or blinker. It's visible right in the middle of the vehicle.

Now BEFORE you say, "well bring on the amber and eliminate the CHMSL" you might as well nanny the 90% of US drivers who are on the road around you- so THEY don't hit YOU.   

The point behind the amber signals is also that they would be only for one thing instead of the dual redlight- "brake vs. turn signal" issue.

If they're so close that they hit you due to the confusion, they will still hit you. And if you don't want them to hit you, BUY A CAR WITH AMBERS ALREADY.

The CHMSL is so you can see it through the rear window of the car ahead of you, which is why it's HIG, and not just anywhere on the body. In fact, it's why convertibles had to mount a box on the body to raise it up, since the law stated that it had to be above the lowest part of the rear window of the car. that was the whole point. And as soon as Chevy got them to drop that and allow the CHMSL above the license plate so as not to make a bump on the top of the convertible's rear deck, the whole thing fell by the wayside, and it no longer served it's original purpose.

My Comet has red turn signals and no chmsl. My kid's truck has red turn signals and no chmsl. Are you going to get confused and crash into it? It's YOUR fault for not paying attention, regardless. That's why we now have mandatory insurance (again, designed so that if everyone had insurance, rates would go down for everyone. That was the arguement brought forth that got it passed. Guess what? Another regulation that did not do what it was designed to do.)

[AutobahnSHO]

If they're so close that they hit you due to the confusion, they will still hit you. And if you don't want them to hit you, BUY A CAR WITH AMBERS ALREADY.

The CHMSL is so you can see it through the rear window of the car ahead of you, which is why it's HIG, and not just anywhere on the body. In fact, it's why convertibles had to mount a box on the body to raise it up, since the law stated that it had to be above the lowest part of the rear window of the car. that was the whole point. And as soon as Chevy got them to drop that and allow the CHMSL above the license plate so as not to make a bump on the top of the convertible's rear deck, the whole thing fell by the wayside, and it no longer served it's original purpose.

.... Guess what? Another regulation that did not do what it was designed to do.)

But studies have shown and common sense agrees that even if the CHMSL doesnt' work exactly like intended, it HAS reduced wrecks a few percent. The few bucks it costs to put them on ALL vehicles is a drop in the bucket compared to the several THOUSANDS that are wasted in wrecks, not to mention the environment of putting vehicles out into the scrap piles...

Your argument of "nanny obtrusive government" and "people should drive better" does NOT pass the common-sense test against "make EVERYONE just a tiny bit "safer.""

[MX793]

That's either been modified or is not an American market car.  Mustangs of that generation did not have amber lenses in the turn signals.

EDIT:  Just noticed that's a Cobra.  Ambers were found on the Cobras, but not on the regular V6 or GT Mustangs.

[ChrisV]

That's either been modified or is not an American market car.  Mustangs of that generation did not have amber lenses in the turn signals.

EDIT:  Just noticed that's a Cobra.  Ambers were found on the Cobras, but not on the regular V6 or GT Mustangs.

Yup, it's a Cobra. Followed one the other day, which is why I went looking for a picture.

The point is, they are available on lots of different cars already, so the choice is out there if you feel you need them to be safe.

On another forum, someone was saying that this regulation was good because it finally stopped European manufacturers from having to make red taillights in the US, and that the regulations as stood forced all red tailights to "protect" the cheap US car industry. Like John, he was under the impression that cars in the US don't have ambers,   US cars never have had them due to being too cheap,   and that foreign manufacturers were currently being forced to go to all reds to protect the US manufacturers.   He also said that it was sad that European cars were forced to go to all reds because they then lost their "european falir" that ambers gave them. So I posted this list of cars (and Japanese cars as well) and said: lots of European flair there, huh?  

European and Japanese cars in the US that have all red lights are done that way because the designers want them to be that way. Even manufacturers that tout safety, and know the same studies John pointed out, make red taillights in the US, not because they are forced to, but because they feel safety is NOT compromised.

[ChrisV]

But studies have shown and common sense agrees that even if the CHMSL doesnt' work exactly like intended, it HAS reduced wrecks a few percent. The few bucks it costs to put them on ALL vehicles is a drop in the bucket compared to the several THOUSANDS that are wasted in wrecks, not to mention the environment of putting vehicles out into the scrap piles...

Your argument of "nanny obtrusive government" and "people should drive better" does NOT pass the common-sense test against "make EVERYONE just a tiny bit "safer.""

What line have YOU made up that YOU won't cross? "common sense" says that a mandatory 25 mph top speed would make EVERYONE just a tiny little bit safer, but not even YOU will argue for THAT sort of regulation. Because you don't want TRUE safety, just the illusion of "if it saves just one life, it's worth it."

We should not regulate common sense. You have a choice. If you feel it's safer for you and your family, then buy a vehicle that ahs them already. They are available. Don't regulate it and tell others what they can and can't buy.

[AutobahnSHO]

Don't regulate it and tell others what they can and can't buy.

They already do. There are so many regulations that anyone selling cars in the US has to follow, your head would spin.
So I figure that
a- amber IS safer (no one has been able to refute this in 11 pages. Many have said that it shouldn't be safer because everyone should be as good at differentiating between red turnsignals and red brake lights the same as amber turnsignals and red brake lights ...)
b- Therefore, changing a few paragraphs of EXISTING regulations is nothing to get upset about.

---------------------------------
What line won't I cross? well, I certainly drive much faster than 25mph. And actually, 25mph still wouldn't stop all vehicular deaths. There was some teen running across the street and got hit and killed in a 20mph zone in my hometown, so that's not true at all.
Your "25mph commonsense test" = FAIL

OH WAIT
Let's put up impenetrable barricades at all pedestrian/road crossings.       
A lot of it is money vs. gain. This one is a no-brainer. Accident rate would go down, and a poor minority would not be able to buy cars with red turn signals. What a travesty.

(BTW look up my record on government vs. individual liberties- I am totally against Bush's domestic wiretapping, public healthcare, PMism in any form, etc...)

[2o6]

As JWC said... You can get ambers now. No waiting. American cars have had amber on some models since '75. Many European and Japanese cars have had them, as well. Since the choice is available to you now, and has been since the '70s, how will the regulation help YOU, like YOU said it would?

As far back as '75, Ford had ambers on cars like the Granada in the US. Why wait? If you "need" them to feel safe, you can get them.



























 

And look how many NEW cars don't.

[hotrodalex]

I think we need to change all brake lights to amber and keep turn signals red. I almost got rear ended today (in my Camaro (!!!!)) while I was stopped on the interstate because of an accident. If my brake lights were amber the driver would have seen me better.

[AutobahnSHO]

I think we need to change all brake lights to amber and keep turn signals red. I almost got rear ended today (in my Camaro (!!!!)) while I was stopped on the interstate because of an accident. If my brake lights were amber the driver would have seen me better.

The color really isn't the issue, not-funny-guy.

It's using a different color for brakes and turn signals.

[hotrodalex]

The color really isn't the issue, not-funny-guy.

It's using a different color for brakes and turn signals.

Oh that was the problem. He thought I was changing lanes.

[2o6]

I think we need to change all brake lights to amber and keep turn signals red. I almost got rear ended today (in my Camaro (!!!!)) while I was stopped on the interstate because of an accident. If my brake lights were amber the driver would have seen me better.

One: We're talking about new cars.

Two: Yet again. WE ARE NOT SIMPLY REFERRING TO THE CAR DIRECLY IN FRONT OF YOU.