Benny wrote:> >

No. LCD's do not generate light. They only block light.> I would think it would be simpler just to turn the light on and off> as needed.

No. LCD's do not generate light. They only block light.> I would think it would be simpler just to turn the light on and off> as needed.

Looks like they reduced the number of housings and bulbs to 1 per side.

Someone told me in another thread recently that the backward USA had> finally abandoned red rear turn signals.

«» wrote:>> Benny wrote:>> >

Looks like they reduced the number of housings and bulbs to 1 per side.

That's not correct at all. The US still permits red rear turn signals,> either as the brake light flashing or as a separate red light, > identical> to the brake light and often right next to the brake light, so you get> "duelling reds". And what's more, the US is actively trying to force > the> rest of the world to accept the red rear turn signals they (the rest > of> the world) rejected entirely by the mid '60s.>

DS

What's stopping mandatory amber rear signals in North America isn't that> they're not better, it's the automakers' "Show us the river of blood on> the highway 'cause we allow red, or we forbid you to mandate amber!"> relationship with the regulators -- and those regulators' acquiescence.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:>

[snip]>

Saving what can't be more than a few nickels in cost by using red rear> turn signals is an indicator of how close to the bone a manufacturer is> willing to shave their design. If, as a buyer, I think amber turn> signals are better, I'm not going to think very highly of a company that> gets that cheap.>

Rather than showing them a river of blood, customers need to show these> manufacturers a river of red ink on their balance sheets.>

Saving what can't be more than a few nickels in cost by using red rear> turn signals is an indicator of how close to the bone a manufacturer is> willing to shave their design. If, as a buyer, I think amber turn> signals are better, I'm not going to think very highly of a company that> gets that cheap.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:>

Good, we need more of you, because right now, people at Honda and Nissan>and Ford claim that "Americans prefer red turn signals" while Audi and GM>and Chrysler and Toyota and Mazda play with rear turn signal color as a>styling gimmick.

God forbid the companies give people what they want, esp when research> results from the REAL WORLD demonstrates that it makes no difference.> --

Wrong, there is no absence of evidence. The study has been done.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Ashton Crusher wrote:>

Hasn't. Perhaps you have a selective-onset reading disability. Let's try>again. I'll type slowly for you -- sounding out the hard words might help>your comprehension:>

They compare the crash involvement rates of vehicles with amber rear>indicators and otherwise identical vehicles with red, and find no>significant difference. Duh. It's not the signalling vehicle that depends>on its own signals...it's the vehicles AROUND the signalling vehicle that>depend on the signalling vehicle's signals!

And *THAT* research hasn't been done. The rest of the world (the ENTIRE>rest of the world) has looked at the mountain of data supporting amber,>agreed that it'd be extremely expensive and difficult to track the crash>involvement of cars that happen to be behind red-signal vs. amber-signal>vehicl­es when the signalling vehicle itself isn't involved in the crash,>and based their regulations upon the preponderance of evidence.>

That does not mean there's no difference between red and amber. It just>means the crash rates of the vehicles that *would* be affected by amber>vs. red haven't been tracked. Until that is done, it's not supportable by>fact to say that rear turn signal color makes no difference to safety.>

DS (Ashton, I didn't see you at the last few Transportation Research Board>Visibility Committee conferences...where­ were you hiding? Or is it just>that you're not a member?)

Ashton Crusher wrote:

I'd like to see some facts that support your assertation that xxx> doesn't work as well. I bet you don't have any.

I'd like to see some facts that support your assertation that xxx doesn't > work as well. I bet you don't have any.>

I'm a regular driver. I think amber is better.>

Without wanting to suggest that that survey was done by a brainwashed> american who would not want to admit he was wrong to the rest of the> world..>

The point remains that combining the two functions, stop and turn, in> the one lamp puts another little decision on the driver who is already> overloaded with decisions to make in too short a time.

You say this with such authority that I assume you have> a cite to a study or studies that backs you up on this> contention?>

JazzMan> --

On Mon, 2 May 2005, Bill wrote:>

That's just it: Ashton seems to lack even a rudimentary grasp of the>principles of basic logic and factual support. Among the things he seems>not to understand is the impossibility of proving a negative and the>difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.>

DS

On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:28:26 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."> <Paul@Hovnanian.com­> wrote:

Why would they assume I'm slowing down? Somehow none of these awful> terrible things that supposedly happen due to the tragic absence of> amber turn signals ever seems to happen in the real world.

Ashton Crusher wrote:>>

[snip]>

Because all they can see is your brake light blinking at them.>

I've seen too many people stuck in a left lane (a few do come to a>complete stop) because nobody can tell that they want to change lanes.

Ashton Crusher wrote:> >

[snip]>

Because all they can see is your brake light blinking at them.>

I've seen too many people stuck in a left lane (a few do come to a> complete stop) because nobody can tell that they want to change lanes.>