[net.auto] turn signals

zorat@sbcs.UUCP (Alessandro Zorat) (02/16/84)

Why is it that many (all?) american cars use the same light for the
brakes and the (rear) turn signal? When a driver has the turn signal on
and breakes, possibly repeatedly tapping the breakes, it takes me
longer to decide whether he/she is blinking left or right. 
Not so with the amber colored turn signals and (separate) red brake
lights.
It seems to me that any simple experiment will show that the amber turn 
signal are faster to recognize and hence probably safer.
I write this after having followed a car, that at an intersection moved
toward the center of the road, and had one blink on the (red) LEFT turn
signal. This led me to conclude that it was turning left, so I started
passing it on the right. Of course, the blink I saw was the brake
light; the right brake light did not come on because it was inhibited
by the RIGHT turn signal being on - or maybe it was burned out, for all I
know. It would had (probably) come on if I had waited one more second.
But by then I was already passing on the right; when I saw it coming in
full swing to the right, I had to do a rather interesting maneuver to
avoid getting hit midship.
Don't tell me I should not have passed it to the right. My point here
is that if that car had had an amber turn signal, this would not have
happened.

dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/17/84)

I was always under the impression that American cars didn't use amber
turn signals because it was a bit more expensive to install another lens
and bulb and the wiring to go to it.  When was the last time an American
manufacturer installed a major piece of safety equipment without some law
forcing them to?  European manufacturers seem much more concerned with
function and safety than American ones, and have been for a long time.
The Japanese manufacturers also seem better in this respect.

However, the American manufacturers have recently seemed to have caught on
that good design (instead of styling) might actually sell some cars.
So give them a chance.

Next time you (or anyone out there) goes shopping for a car, make a list
of features that you consider important, and consider it a serious
omission if a particular car is missing one or more.

A suggested list of absolutely-must-have features:

	day/night mirror
	rear-window defogger
	3-point seatbelts

And very-important features:

	sensitive steering with very little play (probably means
		only rack-and-pinion)
	amber turn signals
	rear wiper/washer (if hatchback)
	remote control driver's mirror
	full-sized spare tire

I could think of more with time.  If more people refused to buy cars which
lacked important design features (and thought about what features were
important), manufacturers would be more inclined to build cars that way!

rmiller@ccvaxa.UUCP (02/21/84)

#R:sbcs:-59300:ccvaxa:4900032:000:534
ccvaxa!rmiller    Feb 19 22:09:00 1984

i was thinking the same thing about taillights today on the freeway when
a new monte carlo came past me. the car looked rather nice, but there
was so much open space on the back and only one exterior lens on each
side, it was awful! i REALLY like the amber turn signal, and i think
that designers are missing a chance to do some fairly neat things on the
tail of the car WHILE making it safer.

uiucdcs!ccvaxa!rmiller

ps has anyone seen the tail of a Lambourghini? wonderful taillights
(usually it's about all you see, but well ...)