Amber vs. red rear turn signals, final say

Can we now stop this silliness of US-specific rear light assemblies on German cars? (y'know, the extra click on the fog light switch that does nothing at all kinda bothers me. And Volkswagens and Audis should not have red directionals.)

Damn you.

nate

Wow. They probably spent $1.5M to find out what an afternoon on the highway could tell you...

Hardly. All that report shows is that you can use statistics to "prove" anything you want. Please explain why RED signals work better in approx 1/3 of the states they analyzed. If there is REALLY a benefit to amber and/or if their methodology was worth a shit the benefit would show up in EVERY state. Clearly their analysis or their data set or BOTH are flawed. You also need to explain why Amber is better for left turns yet not better for any of the other maneuver. This report is toilet paper.

I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the report and see for yourself how ludicrous this "proof" is.

Glad to see you posting, Mr. Stern. As you might remember, my opinions are wrong because I think that high beam DRLs are effective at gaining notice during the daytime (an effective way to not incur an accident) but I'll have to agree with amber turn signals. It's not that hard to execute a stylish taillight with amber, for example you can use 7507NA,

1156NA etc... in a clear housing to look "cool". Manufacturers alternate amber with red turn signals apparently every couple years or so to spiff up the mid model cosmetic changes, no more, no less. I seriously doubt that manufacturers change their minds every three years on average as to what is "best" for the motorist; rather they change body bolt-on items to sell more cars after the stigma of an "all new body style" has worn off.

This said, maybe we are progressing towards requiring more stimulus as new, better regs/ideas become implemented. I've recently noticed utility trucks that use a light bar with a stroboscopic routine during initial brake pedal operation. It's eye-catching now, but what about when we get used to such technology? What's next, a shock to the groin during moderate deceleration?

To be fair, around here, such a study would be invalid, because signals need to be USED to make any sort of difference.

nate

LOL. If only all engineering were so black and white as you claim it should be. Not to mention having perfect data to work with. When a great many drivers don't even use turn signals there is going to be a significant portion of people driving vehicles with amber turn signals that see no benefit. Why? Because they have to be used first.

To anyone with an engineering background who has had to find meaning by sifting through data it's actually quite good in the way variables are controlled.

I have noticed an increase in use in my area, however, it would be nice if they used them *BEFORE* they actually started the turn...

Wonder if the author is English or American? An English PhD can write a paper three times as long as an American, and with even less data.

Brent wrote in news:h1vqqv$ctr$1 @news.eternal-september.org:

Well, that can't really be known since the raw data are not supplied. Nor are there any links offered to the location of the raw data compiled by the authors.

And if you're Noam Chomsky, you can write a book about nothing at all...

Unless I missed it they never showed an analysis of ALL the data, they made it stratified by maneuver. Having seen that trick many times in the past I suspect that they did analyze all the data and discovered that there was NO statistically significant difference between amber and red. Then they went hunting for a way to stratify the data till they got the answer they were looking for. I also noticed that while they had several makes and models it seems they lumped em all together. Unless someone wants to pay me for my time I'm not going to redo their project but it's patently obvious that they had an answer in mind and went looking for data to support it.

Ashton Crusher wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The whole point of providing raw data (such as the actual police accident reports) is so other researchers can see how the authors arrived at the conclusions they did. Identical data may be sorted and interpreted different ways by different researchers.

One thing I noticed is that the authors appear not to have distinguished between collisions within dedicated turn lanes and within lanes that double as turn and straight-through. I would suspect that turn signal recognition -- and timely response to them -- would be far more critical in double-duty lanes than in dedicated turn lanes, where the following driver would have a reasonable expectation of needing to slow down anyway. This one point could be enough to alter the report's final conclusion, since the overwhelming bulk of collisions occurred during turns, according to the report. But we'll never know in the absence of the raw data.

Did you see this interesting tidbit on page 3? "...If lamp separation is placed in the regression model in place of turn signal color, separation is itself a significant predictor, although weaker than signal color." How much "weaker"? We don't know; the authors do not say. And this is really too bad. Seems to me a critically important point could be overlooked here.

It seems to me that the same people who trash NHTSA studies / methods / conclusions / etc (and Government in general) when they disagree with them, have no problem trotting them out when they support their ideas.

Ed

Here in Atlanta, the turn signals are controlled via the GPS not to work anytime the air conditioner or cell phone are in operation.

I think they would note use of cell phones has and will wipe out a goodly portion of the benefit of any other safety device.

Lugnut

That's easy. When your are hugging someones ass getting ready to pass, the right side is out of your field of vision.

Lugnut

First, those who usuall oppose said ideas tend to worship the state so when the state's own departments create something for those ideas it makes an effective debate point.

Second, when it comes to the NHTSA and other driving/highway departments there is often many good studies there. Even the ones that declare 'speed kills' usually only do so in the conclusions. That is, the study itself will show that 'speed' is only responsible for some single digit percentage of collisions, fatalities, or what have you. In this same vein, one leading document to use to show CO2 induced 'global warming' to be the sham it is, is the UN's own report. It shows that maybe the CO2 produced by man is responsible for 6% at most... then in the conclusions recommend the politically desired items. That's how government often functions when it comes to research.

third, many reports and research are simply surpressed and not released or severely edited when they don't support the politically desired aims. They still exist and are often leaked in their original form. This happens across all subject matter. For instance, this report on cocaine:

fourth, the research is out in the open and then ignored by beuracrats and elected office holders.

Because of such conditions, it is very often possible to use government research to argue politically incorrect points even though government is the actor of 'evil'.

You're an idiot.

From the Executive Summary:

"Specifically, an answer was sought as to whether amber or red turn signals were more effective at preventing front-to-rear collisions when the rear-struck (leading) vehicle was engaged in a maneuver where turn signals were assumed to be engaged ? turning, changing lanes, merging, or parking."

One need read no further than that. -----

- gpsman

yes, I did notice that. I also have a bad feeling about they way they "normalized" the data by setting up the 2x2 boxes. I'd have to give it more thought but the thought occurs that the number of amber cars vs red cars may be influencing the outcome. Also surprisingly missing from any analysis was any analysis of the results when switching from the car starting with amber and going to red compared to starting with red and going to amber - for those vehicles that yo-yoed back and forth in different model years.

It's an extremely sloppy piece of research.

Ashton Crusher wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Particularly instructive -- but also absent from the report -- might have been a direct comparision of _contemporaneous_ models that were physically identical...except for their signal lamp color.

The Nissan Quest (red) and the Mercury Villager (amber) come to mind. I wonder what such a comparison would reveal?

I know the authors spent some time on the Nissan Altima, but that study had two possibly confounding variables: 1) spread over vehicles up to eight model years apart, and 2) three body redesigns.