I don’t understand this at all. Why do I, as a person in front of a vehicle, care whether or not it’s braking?
Yeah, and then you have the distraction of people looking in the mirror because of lights behind them. Especially seeing lights behind you at night thinking it’s a police car
The key detail is that, like with rear brake lights, they extinguish when the foot is removed from the brake pedal. So it’s not so much the presence of the brake light, but the presence of an inactive brake light that would, serve as a warning that a car is about to start moving. This would be very helpful to drivers on a road when other drivers are pulling out too early from a side road or driveway. That little bit of extra warning is, in many situations, enough for you to pump the brakes, hit the horn, or both.
If anything I think they would have to use a green light that turns on when accelerating/not braking. It would be way more dangerous in the future when people are trained with “No green = braking” but older cars don’t have the light at all.
It’s important to consider how a transition like this would even work. I personally think this is a little too drastic of a change, and is incompatible with existing vehicles and habits.I get what you’re saying — so it’s about the subconscious awareness of the state change that happens after the driver decided to go, but before the car starts moving. I can see some amount of value in that.
I still can’t help but think it’s going to be interpreted by many as a sign that it’s safe to proceed and ignore the car rather than be prepared for any eventuality, though.
My main thoughts instantly come to someone in the opposing left turn lane, if they are not applying the brakes they are likely starting to turn and if they do it right in front of you, you have more of a heads up than just them starting to turn and can set yourself in a better position to hopefully stop in time. Driving is all about judgment calls and having more info quicker is important to those calls.
But isn’t that exactly the situation we’re in now? If there’s a car in the opposing left turn lane, they might start to turn in front of you.
The only thing the light does is say “right now, they’re braking”. It doesn’t say whether they’re moving or stationary any more than the headlights, and it doesn’t say anything about their intentions or whether it’s safe to enter the intersection.
Sounds like it can help oncoming traffic as well as traffic to either side of the vehicle
Yeah, the only thing I could think of is that I’m driving down a country road, and I see the front brake light ahead of me because someone stopped for a deer in the road or something.
Otherwise I cannot fathom what benefit it brings. Anything that ultimately becomes “if you see this light, it’s safe to [X] in front of this vehicle” is going to get people killed.
And the negative state of “the lack of this light means that the vehicle could be moving” is exactly what we have now.
Reading through the article, it seems like one scenario is that a vehicle stopped at an intersection might be about to pull out, endangering another vehicle about to cross? It seems like the thinking is, if you notice a front/side brake light stops being lit as you approach the intersection, it might indicate they’re about to accelerate - be cautious!
I’m not fully convinced either, it seems like a lot of the benefit they’re projecting is based on analysis of historical collisions, rather than any kind of experimental results. It sounds like the study is to justify expanding research to that sort of simulated experimentation, though - I’m curious what that kind of testing would find.
Say you’re a pedestrian and a car is coming toward you as you’re entering a crosswalk. Being able to see if they are braking or not could save your life.
Ah. I see. They are emitting a green light, so I know they’re braking, and it’s OK to cross.
But, it turns out that they’re planning on turning into a driveway past the intersection, and not into the intersection I am crossing.
That’s OK. I can check “impersonate a hood ornament” off my bucket list.
We already have this problem with turn signals: there are circumstances where it would be confusing and dangerous to use them in the manner prescribed by law, and to avoid dangerous ambiguity, they should actually be used much later than the law specifies.
If a car is braking it rides differently from one that isn’t. A car is normally rather level and leans “forward” when braking.
Besides that, YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING. If it’s moving fast enough that you need this, you shouldn’t be trying to get in front anyways.
YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING
This, exactly. This “plan” sounds terrible to me.
No, I’m not braking to turn at the intersection you’re sitting in. I’m turning into a driveway just past that intersection. If you pull in front of the green light the government says I have to have on my vehicle, I’m going to t-bone you.
For normal people, yes. This is to prevent accidents.
Again, if you’re too stupid to make sure the multiton hunk of metal is coming to a stop by all the other obvious visual markers, including watching it’s speed compared to stationary objects like signs and lamp posts, then this won’t do shit. People need more aweness of their surroundings, not a bunch of lights and horns because people won’t pay attention.
You enter the road when it’s safe, not jump in and play frogger with lights hoping to get across.
Yup, this is a moronic idea.
for example, say you are waiting to make a left turn, it would be nice to know if oncoming cars are braking or not. if they are stopped and you see their brake lights turning off, you can judge if you should hurry up or not turn at all.
This will lead to people braking momentarily to slow down, and others turning in front of slowing down traffic.
Little benefit, but the cost of adding front brake lights would be passed on to the car buyers.
Like someone said in the hnews comments, this might work for auto transmission but with manual gearing you’ve got people using engine braking on hills.
Also like stated in the article the colouring is going to be an issue and trying to see some green lights whilst the headlights are on (full beam fog lights perhaps too?) doesn’t seem practicable to me.
with computers these days an acceleration based system should be achievable for all types of cars. hybrid/electric cars already do it with regen braking.
Possibly, and I’d be interested in some sort of 360° LED on top of a vehicle to indicate to pedestrians and other drivers alike of its (de)acceleration.
But jamming some non standard colours in what is a long term understanding on the front of a vehicle I can’t really get with and would like to see the impact to people with partial / colour blindness with using such a system.
Like, does the average pedestrian know what the green and red lights mean on an aircraft? I bet not.
fair point about color blindness, but surely there is some 4th color that would work well with red/amber/white.
Well you should educate yourself on the rules of the method of travel no matter.
If you were to go up in the air and you didn’t educate yourself on what the lights mean, you’re going to ruin everyone else’s day in your incredibly dangerous ignorance.
You don’t take a paddle boat onto the water without understanding some basic principles of water navigation… why would roads in this specific cause be any different? We already do with most land methods, this one is gonna be hinge? Nah. Ignorance isn’t an excuse.
Automatics also allow for engine braking. From a quick search, it sounds like a toss-up as to whether that triggers brake lights. Regardless, the article mentions the benefit is not only from cars slowing down, but also from indicating that a car is preparing to stop or “that a stationary vehicle might initiate movement”. Neither of those can be done by an engine brake, so front brake lights would still have a benefit even with a driver that likes engine braking.
Last I heard something like 98% of new cars/trucks sold in America have automatic.
They would probably just use the existing amber lights so noone would know if you were turning or not. I’m not bitter.
This sure riled people up.
This is stupid
I still think rear signaling could be improved dramatically by using a wide third-brake light to show the intensity of braking.
For example – I have seen some aftermarket turn signals which are bars the width of the vehicle, and show a “moving” signal starting in the center and then progressing towards the outer edge of the vehicle.
So now take that idea for brake. When you barely have your foot on the brake pedal, it would light a couple lights in the center of your brake signal. Press a little harder and now it’s lighting up 1/4 of the lights from the center towards the outside edge of the vehicle. And when you’re pressing the brake pedal to the floor, all of the lights are lit up from the center to the outside edges of the vehicle. The harder you press on the pedal, the more lights are illuminated.
Now you have an immediate indication of just how hard the person in front of you is braking. With the normal on/off brake signals, you don’t know what’s happening until moments later as you determine how fast you are approaching that car. They could be casually slowing, or they could be locking up their wheels for an accident in front of them.
I think that’s a neat idea, but we could instead, collectively, just do better at following other cars at a safe distance. I know it’s impractical to expect all drivers on the road everywhere to change their behavior, but it’s also persistently frustrating as someone who has for years frequently been stuck in traffic to see 95% of drivers insist on following less than a car-length behind. Following too closely to enable decision-making or accommodate other drivers is the cause of like 98% of both traffic accidents and congestion, according to my completely anecdotal and made up research.
I suspect a lot of that has to do with the entitled way people are driving these days. If you leave a car length gap, some kid will wrecklessly attempt to cram their way in because your lane momentarily moved slightly faster.
There’s this idea I’ve been considering for a long time.
Imagine putting a remote controlled firework smoke bomb under the tailpipe, hidden from sight. At best a really stinky one that smells like burned rubber or something.
When someone follows to closely, just fake an engine issue or something by activating the smoke bomb and fill their AC air intake with the smell of burned rubber for weeks. Just to teach them to not follow too closely again.
I see a lot of those on trucks here in the south. Good for when you are towing shit so people can see around all your junk in the trailer.
Does your state not require good lights on the trailers? I just built a new trailer last year, I was required to have full working brake and turn signals along with running lights, but I went the extra step and included more brake/turn lights on the front and rear of the fenders, along with reverse lights plus four marker lights along each side. Trailers are hard enough to see, I didn’t want to make it harder for anyone by just sticking with the bare minimum.
I think only brake lights are required I’ve never seen turn signals on them. I suspect the ones I’ve seen with those aftermarket ones drive those trailers on other states with more strict requirements
Seems much more complicated than having the brake lights rapidly flash during hard braking. But of course we couldn’t do that in the US because our turn signals/hazard lights are red
Turn signals can be either red or amber in the US.
yeah, but they shouldn’t be allowed to be red to begin with.
I have seen some cars flash their brake lights when ABS is activated, but this would be better
The EU has approved G-triggered brake lights that do just that, flash rapidly on hard braking. I’ve only seen it on higher end cars so far, but they absolutely exist. Unfortunately in the US people stick brake flashers that blink in patterns every time they touch the brake. Mostly useless as they’re installed to be “look at me, aren’t I cool with my blinky brake lights?” rather than any additional safety.
Japan introduced brake lights that increase intensity based on how hard the driver was braking. 20+ years ago. They tested it in the US and drivers found it to be “confusing.”
If Japan introduced that they never caught on, unless it’s specific to an area or model of car.
90% of the things that Japan introduced according to comment sections on the internet never happened (or never made it past the prototype stage) and the rest was actually introduced in Korea, not in Japan.
The Japanophilia is strong with a lot of people on the internet.
Yeah I mean I’ve been commuting 2 hrs a day in Japan for almost 10 years now-- you’d think I would’ve seen these brake lights by now
I suspect because there’s no consistency in the brightness of vehicle lights. But that’s one of the reasons why I think an incremental light bar would be better, there’s no variation between vehicles. You could even make it more informative by flashing the whole bar when you first brake, so someone behind you can more easily see how much of the bar is being lit up.
If you want that, just light up the first and last LED always.
BMW has implemented this in the US market for the past 20 years or so at least. Under heavy braking, additional brake lights turn on. I believe they call that Brake Force Display. I’m sure they’re not the only manufacturer to do this, too
Plenty of cars flash their brake lights when ABS(/ESP?) engages, which is reasonable and should be a legal requirement IMO.
There’s lots of room to give additional info in between that and “brake light is on because the driver doesn’t understand that they can do mild adjustments by letting off the gas / stupid bitch-ass VW PHEV computer thinks using cruise control downhill with electric regen requires the motherfucking brake lights”. It’s like no-one realizes or cares that brake lights lose all purpose if they’re on when the car isn’t meaningfully decelerating. ARGH.
BMWs need a speeding indication more than a braking one /s
Haha, funny enough, some BMWs have a feature where the speedometer reads 5 MPH higher than actual vehicle speed. Probably to try cutting down on speeding
BMW should focus on making the turn signals work first.
probably because thats a terrible way to do it. It would be noticeable if a car started braking and then started braking much harder, but if they slam on the brakes you don’t see anything change, just a normal brake light.
I think a secondary light that blinks quickly would be a good signal of emergency braking. Like some aftermarket motorcycle taillights that start with a blinking pattern before they stay on, but reverse the order.
So, standard brake light comes on at the standard time, at the first touch of the brake. For stronger braking, the second light comes on. Standard brake light stays lit while the second light begins blinking frantically for emergency braking.
I think some cars also turn on the hazards automatically if you really hammer the breaks.
That could probably be implemented in most existing vehicles, and at least it would provide more information.
By signaling to oncoming traffic and vehicles approaching from the side, a front brake light provides an essential visual cue that a car is slowing down or preparing to stop. When the light is extinguished, it indicates that a stationary vehicle might initiate movement. According to Tomasch, this visual feedback can significantly truncate the reaction time for other road users, leading to shorter stopping distances and consequently diminishing the likelihood of accidents.
Sounds reasonable. Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again.
Some of the new Kias have the rear indicators in the bumper. Why are they hiding them?
Because the designers and marketers were given priority over the safety engineers.
And also like, used at all.
Here’s an idea. How about we zap the drivers after they make a turn if they didn’t use a turn signal beforehand? 😀
Can we do this in the same bill as the popup spikes that take out your tires if you stop across the crosswalk? The guided RPGs replacing red light cams can wait a little longer.
Couldn’t we just use the point system from 5th element? The car noticed you did something illegal and dedicated from your point pool.
Cars with lane-keep assist with vibrate the steering wheel and beep at you. It’s at least something but I think most people turn it off if it gets annoying
Anyone complaining about lane keep not letting them change lanes or make turns is telling on themselves
There are a couple situations where it’s annoying and I turn it off. My truck has the “steer back into lane” style assist, but it’s tried to push me off the road before while I was towing a trailer on some narrow 1-lane roads. Some of the corners it’s just not possible to get around without touching the center line.
The vast majority of the time it stays on though and is quite helpful.
Okay Verstappen calm down there
It means they’re not indicating for their lane changes or turns.
So it sounds like you’re checking to see when the light turns off, to know that the car is going.
Sounds like what we actually need is a green accelerator light on the front of the car.
Theres a saying in computer stuff that applies nicely here. PEBKAC, problem exists between keyboard and computer…turn signals have to be turned on, no amount of engineering can fix bad driving.
Heads up, it’s actually keyboard and chair, not keyboard and computer
Dang it, sometimes I just type stuff and dont think about what I typed (the irony of what I was writing out)
I’ve actually always found it weird with all the automation vehicles have, that blinkers aren’t linked to the wheel. it already automatically disengages when turning, it shouldn’t be too hard to have it auto engage as well when turning
The thing is, you want the turn signal to turn on before the start of the turn, so other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists can react.
agreed, I don’t think the blinker switch should be removed, but a late indicator is better than no indicator.
How would that work? On the highway, a slight nudge on a straight means you’ll cross a lane, meaning turn signals on.
A kilometer later, the exact same slight nudge could mean it’s just a light turn in the road, meaning signals off.
Now you could mandate cameras in all vehicles, which analyze your driving and turn on the turn signals when it thinks you’re making a turn. Now who’s responsible in a false positive if someone else dodges you and crashes because you suddenly turned on the signals without turning? Except it wasn’t you, but your car. Oh and also you made entry level cars 10k more expensive, making them way more inaccessible if you aren’t rich.
I’ve always heard it as “PICNIC”
Problem In Chair, Not In Computer
Oh, you think I need a new chair? Will the Internet come back then?
And never forget about the I-D ten T error.
ID10T for those who didn’t get it.
Layer 0 obfuscation error.
Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again
Not sure if I read that correctly, but I don’t think this has ever been the case?
I mean when a car is coming at me from a cross street, I want to be able to tell if they’re turning or just an asshole not using their signal. On some cars, the turn signal is mounted so far to the side that if they’re approaching from my right and turning right onto the same street as me, I can’t see that turn signal. Sometimes combined with the roundness of the nose exacerbating the problem.
I think what he wants is the front turn signal to wrap around the front, so I can see the left signal from the right quarter.
I’m not aware that this is not the case, but I don’t know that I would have noticed if it was not.
Isn’t that the case for pretty much everything? Newer cars alternate blinking their headlights and the signal indicator, and even cars w/ the turn signal on the side will have some light bleed through since it’s all one assembly. In the majority of cars, I can see their turn signals when they’re perpendicular to me. The larger issue is that most people in my area don’t bother to use their signals in the first place.
Yea, that’s part of why I don’t know for sure if they make cars the way the guy at the top of this thread is describing.
Same. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a car that can show me the signal on the opposite side of the car, but I have seen a lot of cars where I can see the indicator while stopped at an intersection and the car is perpendicular to me, since I have a little bit of angle to see the edge w/ the indicator.
99% of the time, it’s not an issue, and the other 1% of the time it doesn’t really matter if I can see the indicator (I.e. they’re already halfway turning, so they’re angled away from me).
Yes that’s all I want, to be able to see the indicator again. A lot of newer cars have moved them too far to the side of the vehicle.
I encounter this pretty often because a Boston area streets are terrible and the drivers are worse, so a visible indicator helps all drivers make traffic flow more smoothly.
i don’t think that was ever required in the US. it is elsewhere though.
Can’t speak to “required.” But I know it used to be done.
I’m pretty sure most cars have a turn signal near the headlights, and one on the mirror or on the side for that use case, no?
How would you do that so it isn’t ugly as hell and isn’t prone to misunderstanding?
I’ve seen newer cars turn the headlight off while the turn indicator is on, so you get a sort of double-blink effect.
I don’t see any reason why we can’t just have the whole headlight blink yellow as well with the turn indicator. LEDs are everywhere and can handle changing colors really easily, so it’s not hard to require that for all new cars.
Absolutely, but that doesn’t solve the problem that’s talked about here (seeing the turn signal from the other side of the vehicle). It might be clearer what the turn signal is, but if you look at the right side of a vehicle, you won’t be able to see the left headlight, even when it’s massive.
When am I ever looking at the side and needing to see the other side’s turn signal? The best I can think of is (using right side driving) a car turning right into my lane of travel as I’m going straight, but I’ll be a bit offset to the left and should be able to see the right headlight. If I can’t, that means the car is angled to the right, making it obvious that they’re turning.
Because this is what the discussion is about?
Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again.
How would you do that so it isn’t ugly as hell
same way we do with lights now, design them attractively. It is not always successful and that’s on the manufacturers.
and isn’t prone to misunderstanding?
what about it is confusing? green = not coming at you so it’s okay to turn left (or whatever).
This wouldn’t really be helpful to those who are colorblind.
okay, pick a different color then. it’s a solvable problem.
Somebody better tell traffic light designers
Red is always on top (at least in Europe) so even color blind people know what the signal is.
sliding light or arrows
How would that work? If you look from the side you suddenly don’t see anything again, or an arrow point forwards or backwards?
If you look from the front, current turn signals work for that already.
sliding lights: it depends on the bulb but i imagine it would easy to see move
arrows: i dont know why you think they would point fowards or backwards they would just towards the side youre on or not
If you’re looking at the side of the car, you don’t see them the same way as from the front. Which this whole discussion is about.
If you can see both turn signals from your point of view, current design works well enough.
i found a video to help you picture it better (https://youtube.com/shorts/ZD_34DxW_uI)
it really isnt that difficult
I know how flow lights work. But they still don’t help you see better that a car is turning away from you, which is what this discussion is about.
Imagine a crossroad where a car is coming from your right side. You have no way of knowing whether they turn right or go straight, regardless of the way the lights work, because you won’t see them.
< and > for turns. X for brakes.
Honestly, we should focus on functionality rather than aesthetic.
That doesn’t answer the question. The question is how you would design it so you can look at the left side of a car, know that it’s turning right and isn’t prone to misunderstandings.
Struggled with this for a second, then I figured it out…
The brake light coming ON isn’t the important part, like the rear brake lights… it’s the brake lights turning OFF that’s important in the front.
So maybe, now hear me out, MAYBE we need to invert that. Have front brake lights that are on ALL the time, and pressing the brake turns them off to indicate safety?
First of all, this would be illegal in many countries.
Second of all: we can differentiate cars by: has red lights, back.
If we lose this option we can no longer differentiate easily if there is a car coming towards us or driving away from us.
They tested using a green light for the front brake light, not a red one
It is to colorblind people. You could use something else of course, just saying…
It’s doesn’t matter, since the absence or presence of light would still be perceived by colour blind people. It doesn’t change how they would drive, as they are already driving with the knowledge of colour blindness in mind when looking at tail lights.
A lot of colorblind people can tell the difference between red-green and white.
They just percieve red-green as the same.
So they lose the visual cue for front-back under the proposed change.
Colorblind person here. If we’re talking about limited visibility differentiation of front and back, the color of light is way less noticeable than whether we’re looking at headlights or not (based on intensity). There would be no issue telling whether we’re looking at a front brake light or a back brake light so long as the front brake light has headlights around it.
It’s doesn’t matter, since the absence or presence of light would still be perceived by colour blind people. It doesn’t change how they would drive, as they are already driving with the knowledge of colour blindness in mind when looking at tail lights.
Tail lights being red is fine if you live with the most common forms of colorblindness which fall into what we call “red-green colorblind.” It is still a different color than headlights.
Now put those same red-green lights on the front, and we have a problem.
They could use traffic light green. There’s not any problems identifying those even in places with the lights mounted horizontally. There’s enough difference in saturation you can tell the difference even with colorblindness.
But why? Again, the perception would be absence or presence of light on a standardized indicator.
FYI signal lights are much more strictly regulated in Europe, such as position, colour, shape and strength.
This study is from Austria.
Flashing blue would be neat.
Risk Compension predicts that drivers would simply use this new information to drive more aggressively, negating any possible safety benefits.
The classic example we already have of this is when you are stopped at a side road about to enter the main road, and a car coming towards you on the main road signals to turn in.
Many people take the fact the other car has their turn signal on as a guarantee that it’s safe to emerge, but any good driving instructor will tell you to wait until the car actually begins to turn before you yourself emerge.
They had their signal on but that doesn’t mean they’re actually going to DO what the signal said they would.
Same with the front brake light. It would be like “Well their front brake light came on, so I assumed it was safe to step into the crosswalk” NO. They could have just tapped the brake a second, doesn’t mean they saw you, or they will actually stop.
Can I have indicators that are in the same place on all cars and not buried in the headlight? That’d be cool.
The Wilcot solution was adopted by Morris for the 1933 range, except the cheapest car in the range, the Minor. In essence, on either side of the car, was a block of three lights looking very like a traffic light with red, amber and green elements. The idea was that the colour or combination of the colours, showing on one or both sides would guide adjacent traffic of the intentions of the Morris.
Combinations were more complex, inevitably, than just flashing orange lights. Ahead of a need to indicate, the driver would activate the system which would start with both left and right amber lights flashing, like modern hazard warning lights, meaning “Caution”, ahead of an indication being given.
The system was controlled by a knob inside the car, with a spring based plunger acting as a time control for any selection. To indicate turning right, the driver would then request the system to show red on the right and green on the left in a way that almost echoes nautical practice; bearing right was amber on the right and green on the left.
–
Morris threw a tantrum after the MoT approved the use of blinkers on rival Ford cars and vowed never to install them. The MoT ordered the Wicot “traffic robots” removed and so Lucas trafficators were used exclusively in the UK until Morris was sold to Pressed Metal Holdings in the 1950s (in Australia and Canada blinkers were required by law).
The thousands of unusable traffic robots were used in the foundation for a new factory in Cowley. Also used were used brake pads and used sump oil to keep the dust down.
I’d rather see mandatory rear running lights. The amount of people who can’t be arsed to turn on their lights in bad visibility conditions is too damn high.
It used to be mandatory with always on rear lights in Sweden (you couldn’t even turn them off). But an adaptation to EU rules removed that requirement. 😓
I strongly doubt it was genuinely linked to that. There are EU countries where having lights on all the time is mandatory.
There was an EU rule about ten years ago that stipulated that rear lights are no longer mandatory in daylight. The reasoning being to save on fuel. Which is a ridiculous reason, even more so with today’s LED lights.
I don’t know about other EU countries but this was the reason that Sweden removed the requirement. All cars in Sweden used to have the rear lights turned on at all time, even if the light switch was in the off position, but that changed around the same time.
Rear fog lights on all vehicles (some vehicles have them now).
it’s forbidden to use rear fog lights under rain (it’s more confusing than helpful)
if you live somewhere dry, that’s not a concern. But here it rains 1 day in 3
I don’t know where you are but rear fogs aren’t illegal in the rain here and from experience they are nothing but helpful in heavy rain and white out snow. I am always so so sooo glad when someone in front of me is using them when it’s absolutely pouring. You really have to not be paying attention not to notice that it’s two lights and not three and somehow mistake them for stop lights.
In fact, Transport Canada recommends using them in fog, rain, or snow.
Use only if driving in fog, rain or snow as these lights can be confused with stop lights, distracting other drivers.
II. - Le ou les feux arrière de brouillard ne peuvent être utilisés qu’en cas de brouillard ou de chute de neige. ☞ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006842263
Feux de brouillard arrière : ils sont indiqués uniquement en cas de brouillard ou de chute de neige (mais jamais sous la pluie en raison de leur trop grande intensité) ☞ https://public.codesrousseau.fr/conseils-pratiques/909-feux-de-brouillard-avant-et-arriere-quand-les-utiliser.html
Ça c’est de l’osti de merde comme on dit ici.
Yes that as well, I love mine and use them a lot. But that’s a step above rear running lights. There’s no god damn reasons the rear indicators shouldn’t be on all the time.
and on the opposite side don’t turn on your emergency lights while driving in bad weather. you’re only causing confusion by making it seem like you have turn signals on if i can’t see both blinkers.
The hazards also override your turn signals so I now have no idea when you are going to attempt lane change.
The hazards are to indicate you are stopped and now a hazard.
Only when you are stopped and now a hazard. Your car becomes a blinking light. We have road rules for blinking lights, so it SHOULD be saying one specific thing.
Thank you for coming to this road safety talk.
and honestly i have the same problem with that intended use. it often looks like a stopped car is attempting to turn out into traffic. IMO emergency lights should have a faster blink pattern or something to differentiate from turn signals.
Faster blink is already used to indicate that one of the lights is burned out. It’s a consequence of the mechanical part that operates (used to operate) the blinking; less resistance caused by a burned out light means it blinks faster
They also indicate slow moving road hazards like a semi carrying an oversized load
Thats more an issue of using the same lamp for rear lights and turn signal
I read the article and the next one comes up: “Mouse Sperm Structure Unveils Asthenozoospermia Mechanisms” and my co-worker was like wtf are you reading.
