30 OTT 6 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Looks like the NHTSA is looking to make amber turn signal manditory on US vehicles. It's not a bad idea, in my opinion. The trick is getting people to use the signals. Link to Autoblog Website Article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Looks like the NHTSA is looking to make amber turn signal manditory on US vehicles. It's not a bad idea, in my opinion. The trick is getting people to use the signals. Link to Autoblog Website Article impossible unles you super glue a french frie to the stalk.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Bureaucrats looking for some reason to justify their existence, and their department's budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Bureaucrats looking for some reason to justify their existence, and their department's budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. And unless they're planning on having you retro-fit your three vehicles (except maybe the Corolla?), it would seem pretty pointless. What makes an amber "blinky thing" any more noticeable than a red "blnky thing", if you weren't paying attention in the first place? Of course, I know of no law making (functional) turn signals mandatory in the first place. Hand signals are still considered legal in NC, and I'd assume most States. How many people still know hand signals, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 And unless they're planning on having you retro-fit your three vehicles (except maybe the Corolla?), it would seem pretty pointless. What makes an amber "blinky thing" any more noticeable than a red "blnky thing", if you weren't paying attention in the first place? Of course, I know of no law making (functional) turn signals mandatory in the first place. Hand signals are still considered legal in NC, and I'd assume most States. How many people still know hand signals, though? actually its HUGE....a red blinky thing is something I see daily on the motorbike, and its peoples propensity to tap their brake pedals in time to the music...NOT their blinkers.....now if they could also make the third tailight blink rapidly when at a full stop THAt would help as well....half the time you can't tell if someone is actually slowing down or LOCKED up OR at a complete stop.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 actually its HUGE....a red blinky thing is something I see daily on the motorbike, and its peoples propensity to tap their brake pedals in time to the music...NOT their blinkers.....now if they could also make the third tailight blink rapidly when at a full stop THAt would help as well....half the time you can't tell if someone is actually slowing down or LOCKED up OR at a complete stop.... Quite frankly, if the public paid attention to the car in front of them, there would be no need for brake lights. Rule one. If the rear of the car in front of you goes up violently PUT ON THE BRAKES!! Rule two. If the car in front of you is getting too close PUT ON THE BRAKES!! Rule three. IF the car in front of has it's rear tires locked up and is fishtailing PUT ON THE BRAKES!! (PS you can tell that the tires are locked up because they are screeching and smoking) Besides, if people actually paid attention to brake lights there would be no rear-end collisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Quite frankly, if the public paid attention to the car in front of them, there would be no need for brake lights. Rule one. If the rear of the car in front of you goes up violently PUT ON THE BRAKES!! Rule two. If the car in front of you is getting too close PUT ON THE BRAKES!! Rule three. IF the car in front of has it's rear tires locked up and is fishtailing PUT ON THE BRAKES!! (PS you can tell that the tires are locked up because they are screeching and smoking) Besides, if people actually paid attention to brake lights there would be no rear-end collisions. not necessarily true, I was the culprit of being cutoff and couldn't tell if she was slowing down or in this case locked up ( the bimbo was on her cell phone.)....almost made it, but the bike barely clipped her rear bumper....she was in a Toyota SUV so I could not see around her, and the windows were a dark tint....IF I had known she was fully stopped ( and would have if I dcould have seen cars in front of her or through a CLEAR rear window ) I would have had plenty of time....but I didn't/ couldn't.....so, few rasberries and couple of cracked ribs ( which i didn't know about for over a year although I played golf the next day ) some scrapped up Aprilia fairings and tailpipe later, has me wishing for a better "warning " system to make up for suspect driving practices i witness DAILY....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) its peoples propensity to tap their brake pedals in time to the music. It's things like that, that makes wonder if common sense isn't that common. (NOTE: I'm referring to the drivers you speak of, not you) ..NOT their blinkers.....now if they could also make the third tailight blink rapidly when at a full stop THAt would help as well....half the time you can't tell if someone is actually slowing down or LOCKED up OR at a complete stop.... Not trying to be a smart-ass here......but if you see three lights (left, right, center), isn't that saying they are braking? I used to own a motorcycle (Honda Pacific Coast), and usually rode much more defensively. No way was I in danger of rear-ending any car, even it they slammed on the brakes. Edited July 3, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 It's things like that, that makes wonder if common sense isn't that common. Not trying to be a smart-ass here......but if you see three lights (left, right, center), isn't that saying they are braking? I used to own a motorcycle (Honda Pacific Coast), and usually rode much more defensively. No way was I in danger of rear-ending any car, even it they slammed on the brakes. people dont use their brakes to just stop....its also slowing down because someone 300 yards in front of them slowed down, the thought of just taking ones foot off the accelerator is redundant, so my point is HOW do you tell if a car is gradually braking, fully stopped or panis braking? people ( at least here ) dont drive smoothly, its all on or all off, seemingly NO in betweens,. my situation on the bike was being cut off by someone on a cell phone to then slam her brakes on...four contact patches beats two everyday of the week...and I drive REAL defensively....there was PLENTY of space UNTIL she came hurtling in....ANY space is an open invitation here ( Cal ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) people dont use their brakes to just stop....its also slowing down because someone 300 yards in front of them slowed down, the thought of just taking ones foot off the accelerator is redundant, so my point is HOW do you tell if a car is gradually braking, fully stopped or panis braking? I guess it has to do with how fast you are approaching the oncoming car(s). people ( at least here ) dont drive smoothly, its all on or all off, seemingly NO in betweens,. Evidently, bipolarism isn't limited to the voting booth in California. my situation on the bike was being cut off by someone on a cell phone to then slam her brakes on...four contact patches beats two everyday of the week...and I drive REAL defensively....there was PLENTY of space UNTIL she came hurtling in....ANY space is an open invitation here ( Cal ) Unfortunately that's going to happen. Truckers are all too familiar with that scenario. As for me, I never rode beside (along side) any car, unless it was stop-and-go. Edited July 3, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I guess it has to do with how fast you are approaching the oncoming car(s). Evidently, bipolarism isn't limited to the voting booth in California. Unfortunately that's going to happen. Truckers are all too familiar with that scenario. As for me, I never rode beside (along side) any car, unless it was stop-and-go. closest i have ever come to punching a woman.....and what sucked is it was considered my fault!!!!! ARRRRRRG! that said I beleive if the third brake light flashed when at a full stop at least it would supply a clue.....or maybe they flash when braking and remain on when at a full stop...sure would have helped in my case....I literally had no clue, and because when she butted in my safety valve got halved i didn't have the time to react until it was too late....but man I was SOOOOO close to escaping.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) Looks like the NHTSA is looking to make amber turn signal manditory on US vehicles. It's not a bad idea, in my opinion. The trick is getting people to use the signals. Link to Autoblog Website Article Finally! Now they just need to mandate the turn signals repeaters on the mirror/fender. A lot of Ford's 90 products had tricolor tail lamps and were phased out as the models were redone/face-lifted. Nasser's bean counters got involved and they realized they could save $3.00 a car by having one rear tail/stop/turn combo bulb on each side. Even the 08+ escape looks like they were going to have tri color lamps with an amber bulb turn signal on the top of the cluster but then it got eliminated. Edited July 4, 2009 by jasonj80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I have always hated the combined brakelight/turn signal combo, mainly because they seem to be invisible during dusk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Interesting conversation. I feel that amber taillights can be done in a provacative way but there are so many cars that do not need them. The best use of amber taillights on a Ford -- believe it or not -- was the Ford Tempo. (Explorer4x4 you can call that a win.) The Buick T-Type also did it well. Then again, some cars I can't fathom having this. That includes most modern designs. I would rather see the amber turn signals be buried thatn shown prominently. Isn't everyone more used to straight red turn signals? I also believe amber taillights are not beneficial to the eye. I would rather see designs with multiple taillights, some designated for turning, instead of the mandatory introduction of amber lights. I think the current VW Jetta does this with its ringed turn signal -- although I guess it is some popular aftermarket deal (video w/ crappy rap music : ) Side note: Did anyone notice that the latest gen Mercury Sable has (had) amber turn lights while the Taurus has all red? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 If you want to get someone to notice a turn signal it is hard to beat the sequential units on old T-birds, Cougars, Shelbys and the 2010 Mustang. With LED lights becoming more common, we will probably see lots of new configurations in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 The best use of amber taillights on a Ford -- believe it or not -- was the Ford Tempo. (Explorer4x4 you can call that a win.) I disagree. I think the Mustang II did it better. And, of course, I have no problems with the amber signals on my SVO ('cept when I have to change a bulb). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harddrive747 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I disagree. I think the Mustang II did it better. And, of course, I have no problems with the amber signals on my SVO ('cept when I have to change a bulb). This is an interesting thread. I for one think amber should be up front and red in the back. Second I never did like the amber lights in the back. Third with the avent of the LED lights, why can't they make the lights change color for the particular application, such as Red for stop, Yellow for turn and some other color for hazard. I do like the sequential turn signal lights. I also like the turn signal lights in the mirror. Finally it is interesting we are talking about this when I would expect that 50 to 60% of the drivers out there DON'T EVEN USE THEIR TURN SIGNAL. (pet peeve of mine). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Of course, I know of no law making (functional) turn signals mandatory in the first place. May not be required to use them (even that is questionable), but I don't know of any state that will pass a car equipped with signals through inspection if they don't operate properly. Heck, my cousin's car failed its first Maryland inspection because the turn signal stalk was a little loose. It still worked okay, but it was loose. Fail. Edited July 27, 2009 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 If you want to get someone to notice a turn signal it is hard to beat the sequential units on old T-birds, Cougars, Shelbys and the 2010 Mustang. With LED lights becoming more common, we will probably see lots of new configurations in the future. ditto here...was gonna write the same thing I put sequentials on my 06, several people commented like 'you cant miss those taillights'... I'm kinda preferring amber up front only. theres a company 'switchback' that sells bi-color LEDs, saw a set that alternate white/amber here: http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=483212 only thing with those, technically the DOT (4) max number of 'headlamps' rule might be a issue, but doubt anyone would say they are a bad idea coming home tonight about a half dozen bikes were coming at me, and I could not see a friggin thing if they want to mandate some illumination problems, get these bikes with million candlepower headlamps under control...I'm sure the bike guys would say its a safety feature, but I bet the same guys might lose control if we ran the same lights in our cars...I aint seen even projector lamps on highbeam anywhere near that bright... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 coming home tonight about a half dozen bikes were coming at me, and I could not see a friggin thing if they want to mandate some illumination problems, get these bikes with million candlepower headlamps under control...I'm sure the bike guys would say its a safety feature, but I bet the same guys might lose control if we ran the same lights in our cars...I aint seen even projector lamps on highbeam anywhere near that bright... Those lights, just as much as the loud pipes, are a public nuisance. Bikers should also be limited to riding in groups of 4 or less. (NOTE: I used to ride, so I'm saying this as a biker) They should be ticketed in all cases, just like people who stay in the left-hand lane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Bikers should also be limited to riding in groups of 4 or less. What would that accomplish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 What would that accomplish? It is virtually impossible to safely pass a long line of bikes on a two-lane road. Taken as a group, some of these bikers are the equivalent length of a 300 foot semi truck/trailer. Usually semi trucks of a certain length require a permit. I'm sure you've seen groups of bikers riding in a staggered fashion (a safety measure), however if you put them single-file, they would effectively be riding within few feet. It is a nuisance to have such a large body riding as (effectively) a single unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It is virtually impossible to safely pass a long line of bikes on a two-lane road. Taken as a group, some of these bikers are the equivalent length of a 300 foot semi truck/trailer. Usually semi trucks of a certain length require a permit. I'm sure you've seen groups of bikers riding in a staggered fashion (a safety measure), however if you put them single-file, they would effectively be riding within few feet. It is a nuisance to have such a large body riding as (effectively) a single unit. Then don't pass them! A nuisance? Perhaps. But we deal with nuisances every day. It's life. Would you also then insist on banning car clubs from doing cruises? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Then don't pass them! A nuisance? Perhaps. But we deal with nuisances every day. It's life. Would you also then insist on banning car clubs from doing cruises? Just for clarification, I'm not thinking about in-town roads. Would you feel differently if the car club did their (slow speed) cruising on an interstate, or 55 mph primary highway? That's what I have in mind when I find them an unacceptable nuisance, bordering on unsafe. I apologize for not being more specific. Edited July 28, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Just for clarification, I'm not thinking about in-town roads. Would you feel differently if the car club did their (slow speed) cruising on an interstate, or 55 mph primary highway? That's what I have in mind when I find them an unacceptable nuisance, bordering on unsafe. I apologize for not being more specific. I've rarely seen groups of motorcycles or car clubs do the sort of annoying slow speed cruising you are referring to in areas where they cannot be passed. When I have, it has usually only been for a short distance. Some people just have no patience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.