Advantage of Multi-Color Taillights?

imho, red means Stop, amber means Caution - directional signals should be amber

not to mention the improved visibility

Can't say I know of any study that support this, but I know it has caused me trouble when a car didn't have amber turn signals. I drove in LA rush hour for two years. A car ahead of me turned on his left hand turn signal. Oops, no he was pumping his brakes to give me warning of slowing traffic up ahead but his right bulb was burned out, so it looked like he was making a left hand turn. This of course was pre-85/86 model car without the center light. That has helped, but I've seen cars with that light bulb burned out also. Just one time it would have helped me not have to make a panic stop.

I'm sure there are - paging Daniel Stern - but I don't have cites offhand. But from a purely logical standpoint anything that reduces ambiguity can't be all bad.

Of course, this implies that the driver actually bothers to USE the signals...

nate

You've got THAT right, Nate! They don't use the lights very much in the rain or in dark weather around here. Giving a signal would be an insult to one's masculinity.

Heck, the people here don't even stop at a red traffic signal before they turn right. You would have thought that the Darwinistic effects would have been noticed by now.

There's no standardization even with the same manufacturer. Honda seems to use both amber and red turn signals. Personally - I think amber takes out the ambiguity, unless the driver is color blind.

However - I've got a Subaru with a clear lens/reflector and amber 7440 bulbs. Those things are near impossible to find. I ended up ordering several from DS.

Even if the driver is colourblind, amber-directional/red-brake takes out the ambiguity. The "red" and "amber" colour specs are very carefully designed to be differentiable even with the most common forms of colourblindness.

Interestingly, most debates around rear directional colour centre around conspicuity and clarity of the directional signal. The primary

DS

It's obvious. A flashing yellow tells you the person either has their hazards or is turning. A red light tells you they are braking. Two colors that tell you different things. A single red light to do all of these things is a dumb way to save a couple of bucks.

--------------- Alex

Ford's regulatory lobbyist responds to your argument (and mine) thusly: "The turn signal is the only lamp on the back of the car that flashes. Therefore, it doesn't have to be a different color."

Unless the driver is hitting the brakes and then releasing them. Using a different color for signaling can reduce identification time by precious seconds.

If this country adopted the beliefs and rules and upkeep of the roads and weight limits of it as an example ; Germany .

Our country would be bankrupt.

Is Ford the only US manufacturer arguing against multi-color rear taillights? I know that in the past Ford has sold vehicles with multi-color taillights in the US, so I guess they must be legal in the US. Is the cost really that much different? Seems to me that some of the stranger rear taillight arrangements have to be pretty expensive. I was guessing that styling was a more significant factor than cost in the desire of US companies to stick with mono-color rear tailights.

Persoanlly I have no problem with the mono-color taillights. And I wonder if the US changed the rules to require them if it would create a lot of confusion, at least for us old folks. At least now I know the back ends of cars have red lights.

Ed

Not by a long shot!

They are legal in the US, Canada and Mexico. Required in almost every other country in the world, for 30 or more years now. US manufacturers (and US operations of 'foreign' automakers) like to play with rear turn signal color as a styling cue. Whee! Let's treat safety devices like toys!

Can be, but doesn't have to be. There are LOTS of ways to implement amber rear turn signals. Some of them cost no more than the cheapest US arrangement presently allowed (red brake/tail/turn, white reverse). Some of them cost more (all-red appearance with amber turn, red tail/brake, white reverse).

You react faster and more accurately to the brake lights on a vehicle that has amber rear turn signals than on a vehicle that has red rear turn signals -- even if you don't consciously realize it -- and the effect is magnified with increasing age.

Er...huh? Cars have red taillamps and red brake lights all over the world. The only difference is that in North America, the rear directionals may be red OR amber. Elsewhere in the world they must be amber.

Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional isn't visible as amber when it isn't lit.

And everyone more sensible is struck dumb by the idiocy of that argument, and so are unable to respond.

Yep. Guy wears a s*it-eatin' smirk when he says it, too.

Good question. Not tested, to my knowledge. I would imagine the effect is still present, but possibly not as strong and/or with delayed onset.

You think that frequent resurfacing is cheap? Think again. I wouldn't be surprised if the crappy roads in IL actually cost more per mile than autobahn.

Single red taillamps weren't really a problem until the makers started using SEPARATE same-color (red) bulbs for brake and turn signal. The flashing red turn signal can get lost in the red brake light when viewed from a distance. Back when the brake light went OFF when the turn signal took over, this wasn't a problem.

If it DOES hold up in the study, that only proves that the study is somehow flawed or the result is within the statistical error bars for the study.