When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Should Amber-colored rear turn-signals be standard on American-market vehicles?
One thing I've noticed for many years that some vehicles, in addition to the regular red taillights and brake-lights in the rear, have red lenses for the turn-signals, while others, of course, use yellowish or amber-colored lenses for the turn-signals. While each person's eyes are different, to me, the yellow turn-signals makes more sense, and are more easily-identifiable at a distance or in poor visibility. There are some interesting exceptions and adaptations to the red systems, like with the Ford Mustang's red-sequential system (which actually first appeared on the Ford Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar of the mid-late 60s). But, in general, I find the yellows easier to see and react to. Not, also, that when the turn-flashers are mounted on the side-mirrors, they are almost always amber/yellow, even if the lights in the back are red.
If not standard on new vehicles (it may cost automakers more money to use separate lenses in back for red and yellow), then amber/yellow rear turn-signals it could at least be an option (or available with certain packages). I remember the old Chevy Citation, many tears ago, was that way...base-level trims had all-red, upmarket trim levels had the red and yellow.
We seem to be one of the few places in the world (maybe the only country) that still allows red rear turn signals. Most of the rest of the world has converted.
If not standard on new vehicles (it may cost automakers more money to use separate lenses in back for red and yellow), then amber/yellow rear turn-signals it could at least be an option (or available with certain packages).
Given the optional choice of either all red, or the combination of red tail and brake lamps and amber turn signal lamps will cost more than just all red or combination, alone.
It costs foreign (i.e. Asian and European) import automakers more money to maintain different lighting systems, including different-coloured bulbs and/or lenses -- a combination red and amber one for the home market, and an all-red one for the vehicles exported to the USA and Canada.
As long as it has it's own light source and cluster I do not care which color is it. The worst combo is the all-in-one taillight from ten years ago. Also Audi directional running turn signal is pretty bad, it's too slow.
But here is the funny part, Lexus does it yellow so it could streamline the production with international market while Europeans take out the yellow and put in the red to protect themselves from US imports to European markets.
I vote all your options except 'standard' by which i think you mean government mandated.
Well, I said "Government Mandated" because, though there are occasionally some unusual exceptions, that's usually the way that features become standard on new vehicles.
But don't get me wrong. Just because something IS standard on today's vehicles by Government decree, that doesn't mean always I agree with it, or totally agree with it. One example is the CAFE rules, which is forcing smaller engines than a lot of buyers want. Another is the back-up cameras, which add complexity and cost. My answer to that is simply design vehicles with larger windows and better visibility out the back. But I think that having yellow rear turn-signals makes sense, doesn't add much to a vehicle's cost of production, and likely will prevent at least some accidents.
Older Volvos, IMO, had some of the best examples of all...not surprising, with the company's traditional safety-orientation. A simple, non-nonsense, red/amber/clear lens, with three bulbs. The red lens was used for the tailight/brake light, the yellow for the turn-signal, and the clear for the reverse back-up. Simple, easy to produce, and easy to service/repair when changing bulbs. Consumer Reports, BTW, also highly praised that design.
Well, I said "Government Mandated" because, though there are occasionally some unusual exceptions, that's usually the way that features become standard on new vehicles.
maybe i missed it but i see no mention in your posts of govt mandate.
maybe i missed it but i see no mention in your posts of govt mandate.
OK...sorry if that was unclear in the narrative. I did mention it in the poll itself, though.
Option #1: Yes, yellows are safer, and DOT/NHTSA should make them standard.
Also consider that electric, bulb-type turn-signal flashers themselves became standard on all new American cars in 1958 by governmental action, but I couldn't find actual the title or serial number of the legislation. Before that, they were either an option, made standard by the automaker without a government requirement (as Buick did in the late 1930s and Studebaker in the early 1950s), or used the mechanical swing-out semaphores on the sides of the car, which tended to corrode and jam. Or, you just stuck your arm out the drivers' side window like you were taught in old-fashioned driving school, and how some bikers still do it today.
The distinction should be made between yellow and amber. There's a difference. Yes, amber turn signals are a good thing. Amber differentiates between stop and signalling an action to move left or right.
Just like an amber traffic light tells you something - slow or stop or go through, so does an amber turn signal. If you wanted to standardize traffic signals, you would get rid of amber and everything would be red or green.
And to be clear, yellow is for construction, snowplow vehicles and construction barriers.
I honestly feel that it does not matter because the majority of drivers on the road today seem to think that blinkers are optional as well as stop signs, yield signs, and red lights.
I don't see the need, I can tell a blinking red light means they're turning.
What I do wish the government would mandate is turn signal lights mounted on the front fender.
This has been standard and required in Europe for decades, its on this 1980's BMW. When you are on the interstate/multiple lane highway and want to change lanes, there is always that guy two lanes over in your blind spot who is also changing lanes right into the same space you are going for. Neither of you can see each other's turn signals and end up almost colliding. Even turn signals on the mirrors like many newer cars aren't as effective as the signal in the fender. Depending on the angle of the car, you can't see the front or back side of the mirror where the bulb is mounted.
The distinction should be made between yellow and amber. There's a difference. Yes, amber turn signals are a good thing. Amber differentiates between stop and signalling an action to move left or right.
Just like an amber traffic light tells you something - slow or stop or go through, so does an amber turn signal. If you wanted to standardize traffic signals, you would get rid of amber and everything would be red or green.
And to be clear, yellow is for construction, snowplow vehicles and construction barriers.
Yes, the lens-covers may be amber, but the bulbs themselves flash yellowish. I guess it's a matter of semantics.
Yes, the lens-covers may be amber, but the bulbs themselves flash yellowish. I guess it's a matter of semantics.
Some flashers flash amber as there is amber bulb. Our Corolla, Matrix, and 4Runner all use amber colored bulbs with a clear cover while my husbands LX450 uses a amber cover with a yellow bulb inside. I believe the amber cover and yellow bulb costs more and is probably less contemporary today. I don't see it as much, But yes, it is just semantics. Yellow or amber, same thing to me.
03-17-18, 05:35 PM
Should Amber-colored rear turn-signals be standard on American-market vehicles?
