Who do some vehicles use amber turn signals on the rear, while others simply let the brake lights do double duty. I could understand if it was simply a cost-cutting factor, but cars now are just as likely to have SEPARATE bulbs for the turn signals, which are ALSO red (such as the Honda Accord Coupe). The amber signals are MUCH easier to see, and are usually brighter and easier to distingish when braking.
Another example is the Ford Ranger pickup… until the 2000 models, the trucks had amber turn signals… Ford chose to take the technology down a step, by using a single red bulb for both blinkers and brakes. I hate trying to tell when a car is braking simply by the brightness of the taillights, ESPECIALLY when drivers find it necesary to tint over the center brakelight, or worse, simply neglect the bulb.
the double duty thing is american only. When you take american cars to Europe you need to change that. So I guess European and Japanese cars have the yellow turn signals.
sailor is right, I think the double-duty lights are only on American domestic-only models. I haven’t seen any Ranger pickups in Japan, and I don’t think pickups are popular in europe either.
As for the Honda with the separate red turn signals, I think it’s purely for aesthetic reasons. Monochromatic looks are popular these days. The amber turn signal lens clashes with the paint job on white or red cars, so they replace it with a matching (and still legal) colors. This is illegal in Japan, but some auto makers use clear lens over amber light bulbs so the amber color is not very visible when the light is not in use.
Double-duty turn signals are not allowed over here but I have seen the very occasional US car owned by some eccentric collector with them.
I would have thought that if you had your fog lights on it would make it problematic seeing such turn indicators, especially in grotty UK weather.
All Australian cars are required to have red brake lights and amber turning indicators. Reverse lamps are required to be white, although many years ago, the amber trafficators did double duty as reverse lamps.
I agree with muffinman; it must be confusing and dangerous to discern the difference bewtween a braking and indicating, particularly when you can only see one lamp.
Huh? Why would you only be able to see one lamp from the rear unless one was broken? And even if it is broken, if the light is on and not changing lanes, the car ahead of you will likely be slowing down if the taillights come on for whatever reason. The way I see it, the bigger the light, the better, as it will catch your attention easier. Separate turn signal lights mean smaller individual lights–more difficult to distinguish at a distance. To the manufacturer, there is an obvious advantage of less parts to assemble.
Frankly I don’t think it’s confusing at all–you just get used to what the combinations mean.
Well, perhaps you’re in heavy traffic and looking at a car on the next lane ahead of you, so the car behind it is blocking one of the lamps. With an amber turn signal, you’ll know what it is the instant he turns on the turn signal. With a red light, you have to watch it blink once or twice before you realize he’s not just braking, he’s about to drive into your lane.
Admittedly, I’ve driven in both Japan and US and never felt the double-duty lights were dangerous or even annoying. However, that might be because American roads are more spacious. It’s not as important there to have lights plastered all over your car.
Similarly, turn signals mounted on the side of the car (near the front fender) are required in Europe and Japan but not in the US. They are definitely helpful in the congested traffic of Japan and Europe, but not quite as important in most parts of the US.
Confusing and dangerous? At risk of offending some of our friends accross the pond (nothing personal, honestly!), some of you people must get confused pretty easily. This is one of the biggest “mountains out of a molehill” that I have heard in a while.
Sheesh.
I like those side-mounted turn signals, and would not be at all upset to see them become mandatory in the US. Most (all?) German cars that I’ve seen on the road in the US have them.
If I’m about to change lanes, it seems that the person with the greatest need to know this is the guy right beside me in my blind spot that I don’t see (read: the guy I’m about to collide with). In my experience, it’s possible and in fact likely for the blind spots to also be “blind” to the blinkers when they’re only visible from front and rear.
Contrasting with this very wise (to me) lighting requirement, I observed something else in Germany that surprised me. There seemed to be many cars on the road without any running/parking lights designed to be visible from the side. All American cars must have them front and rear, either as wraparound lights on the corners or as separate bulbs on the sides - these seemed to be missing from many German cars.
To toss in my $0.02 US, I agree with bernse; I’ve never experienced confusion as a result of red blinker signal/brake light ambiguity. While theoretical arguments may conclude that amber signals are better, in practice there just doesn’t seem to be any significant difference. To me, at least.
When an indicator bulb fails the flasher unit will light the good lamp but will not oscillate.
If you have amber indicators at least the turning vehicle will be seen as such from at least one direction and since there are often side panel indicators , form several directions, which is better than no warning at all.
If you have a double duty light the observer might be left wondering if the brakes have been applied and that one bulb has failed when the indicator bulb lights up.Surely not good.
In poor visibilty we use fog lights which are as bright as brake lights.If those are used in good visibility it can make brake lights hard to see.If indicator lights were the same colour too one could imagine a goodly number of rear end shunts.
That’s some seriously heavy traffic. I’ve driven in Chicago and Detroit without ever seeing this as a realistic problem. I can concede driving conditions could be hairier in Europe or Asia.
The problem is not with not seeing the blinker it’s not seeing the brakes. The cars that have the dual purpose bulbs, the blinker over rides the brake light so if all of the other lights are out all you see is the blinker and no brakes. I see this a lot in the DC area. but I think it’s just my luck that I get behind people like this.
Um, but don’t you slow down to turn anyway? I fail to see a problem there. After the lights come on, you still have to judge the speed of the car in front of you, because no light is going to tell you how fast he’s stopping.
Not so, there is not always a need to slow down when turning, think motorway(freeway?) exits.
You often get some toolpiece who pulls across several lanes at the last moment to make the exit.
There’s also the idiots that leave their blinkers on, I see plenty of this kinda stuff every day. or the people who don’t use their blinkers and tap the brakes. it’s really not THAT big of a deal but there are a lot of older trucks that only have two small lights that act as brake lights, turn signals, and running lights, when one goes out it can be hard to see, especially in the rain. I also really wish that semis would have more than two lights as they also have dirty lights.
True, you’re not supposed to slow down before hitting but it doesn’t prevent people (read: morons) from doing it all the time. The “toolpiece” who pulls across several lanes is going to get himself into an accident eventually anyway–no configuration of lights in the world is going to save him.
And if light failure is a concern, let me remind you of the 4-engine vs. 2-engine airplane debate; 2-engines fail less often and are therefore preferable. If the problem is people who don’t fix their lights, the 4 bulb configuration is twice as likely to have a burned out bulb…
