Thank you!

 

This proves my point, you like it because "it's cool" that is not what is important and has nothing to do with safety. The more dazzling the light show absolutely does not mean it is safer, there is a line between calling attention and creating a distraction.

 

I think you missed his point.

The look of the signal is slightly different, function and interpretation is the same. The difference IMO is the same as noticing that a turn signal is below the brake lamp instead of above it, or vice versa.

 

Not it isn't, the way a light flashes and the colour is everything. See emergency vehicles as an example.
This doesn't make any sense. Your brain doesn't care where the light is emitting from, as long as you see it without having to put in extra effort.

BTW why did you only bold part of his sentence? It completely changed the meaning you went from
Whether it's flashing or sequential, red, orange, white, green, whatever, i don't care.
to
Whether it's flashing or sequential, red, orange, white, green, whatever, i don't care.

 

the reason we dont have true sequential turn signals is there is an old DOT regulation that says the brake light has to be a certain square millimeters in area (because automotive lighting sucked back then). This regulation has not been update to reflect new technology like LEDs which are dramatically brighter. The mustang can get away with it is because one of its tri bar tailights is well above this square millimeter area so the other two bars are just extra credit. You'll notice on the new Audis the entire strip lights up first then dissipates instead of it building up. The brake light has to illuminate this square millimeter size on initial braking

 

So you're saying that sequential turn signals require extra effort on your part to interpret, and that extra effort results in a distraction that is tied to the proliferation of collision avoidance systems, airbags, etc.? Sorry but I just don't share your opinion, and frankly I think you're reaching pretty far by equating it to real potential distractions like HVAC settings buried in infotainment menus.


Explain how the meaning changes whether I include the colors or not. The colors are just added examples. I think the main point he was making was that regardless of the way a light blinks (or the color), its an indication that the vehicle may move in an unexpected way (slow, fast, sideways, turning, etc).

 

Both can be true, infotainment being distracting and bling signals being same.
Colour is everything in traffic signals and vehicle lighting. That's why you will never see red on the front of a car oncoming vehicles might mistake it for a red light. Same with green, which happens to be the best fog light colour but it would be confusing and dangerous. And then there is blue, how come that's never used on a passenger vehicle?
I get the point but I think it is wrong in several critical ways, including and especially the colour. I can't believe anyone would argue that the colour doesn't matter.

 

of course unless you're colo[u]r blind.

 

The short answer is that in some states, blue lights are associated with police cars, and that is done to help prevent confusion.....and/or impersonating a police officer.

To avoid confusion, I'm a firm believer in having flashing amber (yellow-orange)-colored turn signals on both front and rear. Many countries outside of the U.S. mandate it, but we have not yet seen fit to so so here, which is why red still predominates on many vehicles. Auto manufacturers may (?) have resisted a law like that (I don't know that for a fact, but I'm guessing) because they save a few pennies or dollars on each vehicle by not having both red and yellow-bulb circuits next to each other.

 

Believe it or not, some states will give you a Drivers' License if you are colorblind. That is based on the principle that traffic lights usually have red at the top, yellow in the middle, and green at the bottom, although Texas likes to mount the traffic-lights horizontally because they resist strong wind-gusts better in storms.

 

What's the eyeroll emoji for? Are you saying that if you're colourblind, you aren't fit to drive?

 

That's not my decision to make. But, in today's vehicles, one sometimes needs to be able to tell more than a simple red/yellow/green traffic light. Much of the information inherent in video-screens, for example, is also color-coded. Although shape-codes help somewhat, warning lights on the dash are also usually color-coded.

Whether all of that makes one "unfit" to drive or not depends on a number of factors, which may be different for each vehicle.

 

I'm green/red color blind, and I've never been asked/tested about color blindness at the DMV. And I can clearly see the difference between red and green traffic lights, regardless of whether they are horizontal or vertical. I can't imagine any state denying a DL because a person is color blind.

 

The reason for this is DOT regulations in the US. Audi adds that non sequential light only in the US to appease those regs.

 

I'm not doubting your word, but, when you get your license issued or renewed, they don't ask you to look into the scope with the lighted color-dots in Pennsylvania and call out the number-figure? They do in Virginia.