And it is irrelevant. It does not matter what the other driver is doing. What matters is you need to learn how to drive safely, which means avoiding an accident by paying attention to what the other vehicle IS DOING, and not what you THINK IT WILL DO. While it is acceptable to anticipate the likely actions of the other vehicle, committing to an action based on your anticipation shows nothing other than stupidity.
It's pretty obvious, with each passing day, that even bigger idiots defend Bush.
The ones on Saturns are all aimed too high- ever notice that?
That would be "nothing."
But EVERY red-green deficient driver knows that and relies on it daily.
This is where I say "duh!"
What, can't keep up as the topic drifts to new subjects?
And exactly how does that matter? When the brake lights come on, THEY are the more critical signal. Watch the whole car, see if he's pulling in the direction of the turn signal, and watch your closing rate carefully so that you aren't JUST following his lights. Doesn't matter if he's slowing to turn or slowing to stop, he's SLOWING and that makes it your responsibility to maintain a correct distance.
I don't see how it could be made LESS ambiguous.
With that argument, one could predict the actions of a driver who's vehicle has nonfunctioning tail lamps. I can tell if a car is slowing down without having to see their tail lamps light up. I can tell if a car is about to switch lanes without them signalling.
The problem is that without the signals, it takes me additional time to figure out exactly what they're going to do. If the tail lamps are working and have unambiguous signals, then that additional time required for interpretation of ambiguous signals or vehicle movement/driver body language would not be required.
Exactly. You should be paying enough attention to do so. Brake lights breed lazy drivers.
Where I live no one signals for this anyway, so the point it well taken.
Not really. I downshift to slow down. Drivers watching for my brake lights are going to be disappointed with the exception of panic stops and the final stop as I pull up to a light/stop. It's a last minute warning most of the time if you follow me.
Again, it leads to lazy driving. Consider any warning a bonus and be happy for what you get.
And in the real world, drivers do JUST THAT every day. Its less effective, but its possible.
No disagreement there, but if you call an amber turn/red brake combo simultaneously signalling a turn and a stop "ambiguous," I fail to see any other lighting combination that is less ambiguous. Separate red brake and red turn signals are MORE ambiguous, and I'd say that a combined red turn/brake signal is equally ambiguous.
But I don't necessarily accept that definition of ambiguity, because a stopping car presents a more immediate danger than a car that is only signalling a turn (eg. a lane change with no reduction in speed). So I would argue that the braking signal ASSUMES PRIORITY and eliminates any ambiguity. The turn signal becomes secondary and serves as either a clue to tell you which way to swerve if you can't stop in time, or an indicator that the car MAY not be coming to a complete stop but will be clearing your lane shortly. That's where the only way to be sure is to observe the whole scene, not just the signal lights.
Never seen a Wisconsin 'Farmer's Turn', have ya?
-- C.R. Krieger (Been there; done that)
Never heard that term, but I think I've seen it. Is that where, for no obvious reason, a small vehicle changes lanes one direction immediately preceeding a turn in the opposite direction? Happens quite often. Usually a little compact turning into a WIDE street, too. -Dave
A large problem with open discussion on virtually any conspicuity device or system -- daylight running lamps, red vs. amber turn signals, CHMSLs (flashing or non), whatever -- is that the debate inevitably gets polluted with a bunch of "noise". This noise takes the form of points which, while they nominally involve the device in question, fail to grasp the human side of the equation or distort it to such a great degree as to add nothing of substance to the debate.
Most of the time, most drivers avoid hitting most vehicles. That is why the crash rate is vastly less than one per vehicle mile travelled.
Most of the time, most conspicuity devices -- most *safety* devices of any kind, for that matter -- make absolutely no difference. Blessedly few of us are put in the situation of having to say "My seatbelt saved my life" Regardless of whether we always or never wear the seatbelt, most of us will never be put in a position of having to depend on it.
Likewise, most of the time, brake lamps (regular or high-mounted), turn signals, sidemarker lights and reflectors, the reflective sheeting required on heavy trucks, and all the rest are superfluous. Most of the time we'll see the car ahead growing larger in our field of view even if there are no accompanying brake lights. Most of the time, lane changes without signals don't result in crunched metal because the driver behind has enough attention to spare for the unsignalled change.
It's when attentional load is maxed out, or nearly so -- when the traffic is so heavy and/or fast and/or complicated. when there are six lanes and four onramps' worth of vehicles' movements to monitor, when visibility is reduced and/or vehicles' movements are harder to discern due to weather or darkness, when a driver isn't paying full attention to the driving task for whatever reason, when drivers have fractions of a second instead of tens of seconds in which to make critical decisions -- THAT is the kind of situation in which presence and characteristics of conspicuity devices make a real difference. Just like it doesn't matter whether your car has
8" drum brakes all around or 12" discs all around until it *matters*. Just like it doesn't matter whether you wear your seatbelt or not until it *matters*.Arguments to the effect of "I've been driving for XX years and I've never needed a center brake light", or "I've never seen any ambiguity in such-and-such a signal system" are nothing more than the equivalent of "I've never needed to rely on my seatbelt" -- just confirmation that car crashes are rare relative to the number of miles travelled. They don't mean center brake lights are unnecessary or signal system "A" is no worse than system "B" any more than it means seat belts are unnecessary. Correlation, we must each remember, does not imply causation.
When it matters, it matters bigtime. And *THAT* -- AZguy, Jimmy, and the rest -- *THAT* is why "good enough" isn't.
DS
Interesting points. I guess it's human nature to overly rely on personal anecdotal experiences, forgetting the larger picture you painted so well with your use of good analogies.
Not at all. "I've never seen any ambiguity in such-and-such a signal system" is the equivalent of "I don't think we need airbags since seatbelts do the job just fine".
Are air bags necessary ? Side air bags ? Perhaps eventually roof- turnover air bags, rear seat air bags, etc ? There's a limit to the need for safety devices. The limit is debatable, as is the need for amber signals to make turn signals a minute amount more conspicuous under certain conditions that might or might not occur during _your_ driving.
At some point "good enough" is just that - good enough to get the job done with reasonable safety, cost, and personal choice.
See my post in a new thread on the subject of "Turn Signal Research shows amber no more effective then red"
Why would anyone do that? I can understand an 18-wheeler or a huge truck having to do that (i.e. make a wide turn), but a small car?
Dai
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.