Daytime Running Lights ?

Interesting. My context was in the wrong place then. (e.g. the statement: "There was a disbenefit shown in the results of the study.") That statement always meant to me that the study showed no benefit, but also didn't find/show negative issues either. What you're saying then is that if there is a disbenefit, the results were actually somewhat detrimental (or at least some degree of negativity compared to what had existed before the study)?

Reply to
James C. Reeves
Loading thread data ...

No.

Yes.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

No surprise there Dan. It's your M.O. . Whenever you can't bully you way thru or defend your position you always bow out; just an observation ...

Reply to
AZGuy

Around here we just say negative cost/benefit ratio.

Reply to
AZGuy

Reply to
George

Then provide an example where a vehicle with amber turn signals can have ambiguity or a case where a car with red rear turn signals can have absolutely no case of ambiguity.

Reply to
Arif Khokar

"Credentials" does not make one intelligent.

Reply to
DTJ

They suck. We don't want 'em. You want them ? Turn on your headlights. Case closed.

Reply to
Jimmy

Well then I need to go back and re-read some of those DRL studies with my new found insight! :-) The results are likely worse than I thought! ;-)

Reply to
James C. Reeves

You make the same error Dan does. I don't disagree that LAB and THEORY indicate less ambiguity with the amber. I also don't care if cars have amber turns in back. I do not agree that it's a foregone conclusion that any net safety benefit will come of it. In the same way that the LAB and THEORY for both ABS and DRLs suggested a safety benefit, the experience in the real world is not that clear. For ABS it looks like safety was made worse. For DRLs there were substantial increases and decreases in different kinds of accidents leaving the benefit of DRLs in doubt also. My ONLY question to Dan was, where's the real world proof of his claim that ambers would actually benefit things. He has not offered any.

Both lights on steady it's a stop. One blinking, it's a turn. There is no ambiguity.

It's rare that either red/red or red/amber produces ambiguity and when it does happen it's no big deal.

How many accidents have you been in because you experienced ambiguous turn signals by the car ahead?

It's interesting that everyone complains that no one else ever signals their turns. If it's even partially true that 'no one signals', what difference will the color of turn signals make when no one is using them? Yet none of the hundreds and hundreds of threads and replies to threads ever seems to end with "and because they didn't signal (or because they had red instead of amber signals) I ran into them and had an accident."

Reply to
AZGuy

Reply to
AZGuy

AZGuy wrote:

From what I have read in this thread, there is no research that demonstates a proven safety benefit due to amber turn signals versus red turn signals. Whether you think that there is or isn't a safety benefit is your prerogative, but that doesn't change the fact that ambiguity exists with the red turn signal setup.

In the current thread, I have not read any claim by Daniel stating that amber turn signals are proven safer than red turn signals. All I have read is that amber turn signals are not ambiguous whereas red turn signals are.

Good.

What about individual state changes (brakes applied with one side out versus brakes not applied with one side on)? How many state changes does it take to eliminate the ambiguity. If it takes more than one state change, then there is ambiguity during the first state change by definition.

For separate bulbs, it can be difficult to discern the signal from the brake light from a distance. That is ambiguous and it is not a rare circumstance.

You never provided an example as I originally requested.

I'm not talking about crashes. I'm talking about the definition of ambiguity.

Reply to
Arif Khokar

There's a third brake light now though in the US. No ambiguity there.

Reply to
Jimmy

I was talking about discerning the separate red turn signal from the brake light, not the brake light from the turn signal.

Reply to
Arif Khokar

Unimportant. Red = warning. Wake up and figure out what the car in front of you is doing.

...or did you really mean "brake light from the tail light" ?

Reply to
Jimmy

No, I should immediately be able to infer exactly what the car intends to do, not have to search for a partially obcured signal. I don't see why it's not important for me to know what the car is actually signalling (or even if it's signalling at all).

Now, why don't you provide me a case where a car with amber turn signals can produce an ambiguous signal.

Why don't you, for once, try reading what I wrote rather than making up stuff and attributing it to me.

Reply to
Arif Khokar

Maybe in your anal world. It sounds like you won't be happy until you have an in-dash radar system.

The good news for you is that they are working on the radar application. Then incapable drivers like you will have all sorts of blinking lights and beeping alarms to wake them up when they are failing to pay proper attention to the vehicle in front of them.

It's irrelevant.

I read what you wrote. It makes no sense. You said "I was talking about discerning the separate red turn signal from the brake light, not the brake light from the turn signal." That's the equivalent of saying "I am talking about separating 'a' from 'b', not 'b' from 'a'".

Reply to
Jimmy

Perhaps you can try again without the ad hominems.

Given that that was one of the 2 things I originally requested in this discussion, it is relevant.

Maybe this will help you:

formatting link
Reread the the original message.

Reply to
Arif Khokar

I guess I must be in the wrong thread then. I thought this was a practical discussion of the attributes of turn and brake signal color and whether amber signals are required. You appear to have decided that it's a hypothetical discussion. I'm guessing that you spend a lot of time in the pointless world of academic argument.

How about instead you just make your point properly. You're the one who posted "I was talking about separating a from b, not b from a".

Reply to
Jimmy

You're correct.

Reply to
Arif Khokar

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.