Recent SUV 5 mph crash tests (Pacifica ranked poorly)

Art, there are absolutely *no* data to support this notion of accident reduction due to painted bumpers. In order to support that position, you'd have to show *both* that painted bumpers improve vehicle conspicuity

*and* that this increased conspicuity actually reduces crashes. I am quite confident you would be unable to do either.

DS

The 1989 Dodge Dakota 4x4 I had was rear-ended twice. Once my a Pontiac T-1000 (Chevy Chevette) and the other by a Ford Taurus. In both cases all I needed was a new bumper and the tailgate repainted from the battery acid splash that had eaten the paint off. Both cars were totaled since the impact was into their grilles. I agree that non-uniform bumper height is a issue

Whoops, I meant that if you get a ticket you are going to pay the STATE (a fine) regardless of whether you pay for the other driver, etc. As for who pays in an accident, the insurance companies of each driver determines that in questionable cases. Usually these don't happen because most times the cops show up and write a ticket to whomever is at fault, even though the charge may be minor. Also the State has some law that automatically assigns blame in certain cases. (ie: if you rear-end someone, your automatically at fault no matter what the circumstances are)

Ted

You know it would be impossible to do that, though, for a simple reason. You cannot increase vehicle conspicuity simply by mandating some change to the ass-end of a vehicle, because over time as more and more new vehicles get the mandated change, they all blend into each other.

This was tried with the 3rd brake light. The 3rd brake light proponents went out there and ran some cars with 3rd brake lights and the results were some wonderful decrease in rear end collisions. So they got all excited, little realizing that the only reason their test cars had better results is because at the time the test was run, they were the ONLY cars on the street with the 3rd light - thus they attracted attention.

Today, every blinking car out there has a 3rd brake light, so nobody pays attention to the damn things anymore and the rear-end accident rate is no better than it was before the first light.

Undoubtedly now the 3rd brake light proponents are probably running studies with a total of 4 brake lights, getting the same spectacular results, and no doubt before long we will have yet more ass-end brake lights to hang on cars.

Eventually the ass-end of cars are going to look like a mobile Christmas tree.

:-)

Ted

And don't forget DTL's on the front! 8^)

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

accident

That is why I said "I think".

But I've always been interested in magic and illusions. And the same concept of "black art" is often used by magicians to make tables and platforms look thinner than they really are.

There is a way to prove my visibility theory if someone had the bucks to do so. You get a bunch of cars with bumpers that match body color and you paint the bumper black matte and you set them loose in a city and wait a year and see how their accident rate compares with the same model in the same city with body matching bumpers. When I win the lottery, I'll run this experiment and let you know.

All this talk about bumpers reminded me that a couple of years ago they were talking about making car bodies more pedestrian friendly. So when you collided with a pedestrian, even though he was dead, it would be easy to clean him up so he looked good in the open coffin. Wonder what happened to that idea.

istr that the elevated third brake light was intended to be viewable through a vehicle in front of you, giving earlier awareness that a car further ahead was slowing and stopping.

The wide variation in vehicle heights (or at least the "see through" height) has limited a driver's ability to see these.

I would find it hard to believe that a third light on a car immediately in front of you would help at all, even if it were unusual ("Oh! Look at that, he's got a third brake light", BANG), but the intended ability to see beyond the car immediately in front would.

My $0.02

-- Rickety

That's a popular but incomplete and therefore incorrect belief amongst those who think they know more than they actually do. The novelty effect does exist, but it is usually not an overriding effect.

Sorry, no. That's simply wrong.

DS

I think the CHMSL is a *very* good idea, and it gets on my nerves when people fail to maintain them in working order. I wish there was something similar available that increased vehicle conspicuity from the rear in heavy snow/rain situations. Some of the most frightening driving situations I've ever been in were cases where a snow squall made it impossible to see or be seen.

By the way, the below is snipped from the abstract from the NHTSA text Dan cited.

--Geoff

a.. The lamps were most effective in the early years. In 1987, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 8.5 percent (confidence bounds 6.1 to 10.9 percent). a.. Effectiveness declined in 1988 and 1989, but then leveled off. During

1989-95, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 4.3 percent (confidence bounds 2.9 to 5.8 percent). This is the long-term effectiveness of the lamps. a.. The effectiveness of CHMSL in light trucks is about the same as in passenger cars. a.. At the long-term effectiveness level of 4.3 percent, when all cars and light trucks on the road have CHMSL, the lamps will prevent 92,000-137,000 police-reported crashes, 58,000-70,000 nonfatal injuries, and $655,000,000 (in 1994 dollars) in property damage per year. a.. The annual consumer cost of CHMSL in cars and light trucks sold in the United States is close to $206,000,000 (in 1994 dollars). a.. Even though the effectiveness of CHMSL has declined from its initial levels, the lamps are and will continue to be highly cost-effective safety devices.

There is, it's called a "rear fog lamp".

See:

DS (Yes, there are plenty of aftermarket add-on rear fogs available)

My thought is that the CHMSL was a direct result of those nasty GM station wagons that had the tail lights mounted in the low, chrome rear bumper.

I hit one of those (very softly, no damage to either) on my motorcycle once. They were completely out of the normal field of view, no mater what you were driving.

Dan

My guess it is just kludge patch to the lighting because of all the crap US regulations allow in general.

...and now Range Rover's done it again. Think those red lights up on the rear surfaces of the quarter panels are brake lights? Naw, they're just the taillamps and the reverse lights. The brake lights and turn signals are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the bumper.

DS

As far as I know there is no such law or even rule in North Carolina that automatically assigned blame to the the driver of a car that rear ends another car. Many years ago a school mate got a ticket for making an "unsafe movement" that resulted in a rear end collision. He pulled out of a parking lot immeadiately in front of traffic. The car that struck him had little choice. On the other hand I was deemed financially responsible for damage to the car in fron of me in a chain collison, even though the officer told me he didn't see how I could have avoided the accident.

Regards,

Ed White

Right. Rather than making drivers play the guessing games of 'where are the brake lights on this car' or 'what does that particular red light mean' they just put one in a standard place with a dedicated function.

[regarding CHMSL]

Now what we need is to have amber LHMSL and RHMSL (left/right high mounted signal lamp) mandated on all passenger vehicles :)

The CHMSL is not universal in location, it too is all over the place. From above the rear glass of an SUV to the trunk lid above the lic. plate on some cars.

I believe that some vehicle models use the rear edge of the spoiler for placement of the CHMSL, but I don't know if this is as it's equipped from the factory, or an aftermarket modification.