REPORT: NHTSA may mandate amber turn signals
Some cars have red turn signal lamps, while others have an amber hue. Big deal, right? The National Highway Traffic Safety Association thinks it is, after finding that amber lights are 5.3% more effective at preventing crashes than the red blinkers. NHTSA came to that conclusion after comparing crash data of vehicles that switched from one color to another. Europe already mandates the amber turn signal, and NHTSA says that data from other agencies supports their findings. As it is, American cars sold in Europe already receive legal turn signal units – even if they aren't sold that way in America (see Chevrolet's C6 Corvette as an example).
NHTSA is now asking the public whether it should mandate amber turn signals for all vehicles sold in the States. Unfortunately for automakers, amber turn signals aren't exactly high fashion here in the U.S., as the vast majority of the signals are of the red blinking variety, likely because of cost considerations. While it's true that the auto industry is probably suffering from a case of far too many regulations, anything that can improve safety by up to 5.3% without costing an arm and a leg is probably worth considering. If NHTSA gives automakers a reasonable amount of time to implement the changes, automakers may be able to fit the change into the next design cycle.
[Source: Kicking Tires]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 8)
Frederick Coates 1:02PM (7/02/2009)
finally!
Reply
sk 1:04PM (7/02/2009)
"may" doesn't mean anything yet. I hope it will be implemented.
James 1:08PM (7/02/2009)
Amber lenses? It'll ruin the USDM spec look...
Nooooooooooo..........
zamafir 1:44PM (7/02/2009)
lenses? lmao. no.
*walks out and caresses tail lights with dual color OEM red/orange LEDs*
jv2k 2:13PM (7/02/2009)
I know half these posts are just "who cares" and I'd be inclined to agree that it isn't a big deal, but it really just seems pointless to become a law and I'm curious how this works any better than the flashing red light.
some1 2:18PM (7/02/2009)
I wonder, in the process of reviewing all the cars that had red, opposed to those who had amber, they said the amber had less accidents...
did they even bother to check if these cars drivers USED the turn signal to begin with?
what are the odds, that the government overlooked a small variable in a study, which then lead to a mandate or regulation, that in turn cost people/companies large amounts of money to change...
not possible! what was i thinking...
MikeW 2:25PM (7/02/2009)
About f!@#$%g time!
Then how about positive signaling brake lights.
9600baud 2:38PM (7/02/2009)
finally what? amber is gross. red/clear is the only way to go
Mark 2:46PM (7/02/2009)
Finally is right! Took the govt. long enough to consider. Very much in favor of this mandate, amber turn signals are much more visible and noticeable, especially at night and in inclement weather.
For those concerned amber signals will cheapen the look of a car (I personally don't think they do), it's not difficult to have a red lens but the turn signal itself lights up amber.
tuxchown 3:06PM (7/02/2009)
Yes. Finally another federal mandate which will further ulgy up American roads and no doubt add costs with little to no benefit. Finally or rather, once again, indeed.
PJ 3:31PM (7/02/2009)
Kind of a "duh," really. More differentiation = more visibility. There's a reason traffic lights aren't red, red, and red.
tuxchown 3:56PM (7/02/2009)
Yeah, and there's a reason why turn signals flash. Why muck up our cars for a claimed " 5.3% more effective"? If the claim is that small, imagine the reality.
PJ 4:11PM (7/02/2009)
Any car sold internationally (and this includes quite a number of domestic models) already have amber-lens units designed and in production.
Anyway, deduct 5.3% of the millions spend on EMS, first responders, clean-up and road repair, hospital bills that are picked up by the state, etc. annually and I suspect any cost passed on to consumers will be more than paid back.
jv2k 5:24PM (7/02/2009)
Again I'm seeing this visibility argument and simplicity, but I just don't get it. Maybe it's just me but I have no problem discerning from someone braking and someone using their turn signal(mostly because one involves a flashing light)
Calebe 6:52PM (7/02/2009)
I already only buy cars with amber rear turn signals. It will only give me more options to choose from. As it stands very few American brands even get a look from me because of the solid red tail turn lights. It's all my choice of styling, not a safety reason.
tuxchown 10:06PM (7/02/2009)
"PJ - deduct 5.3% of the millions spend on EMS, first responders, clean-up and road repair, hospital bills that are picked up by the state, etc. annually and I suspect any cost passed on to consumers will be more than paid back."
It doesn't work that way. Your math is off.
Kitko 2:49AM (7/03/2009)
So the US is finally joining the civilized part of the world... A braking car with red turn signals indicating change of direction is the most stupid idea ever.
Let's hope the NHTSA makes orange turn signal mandatory ASAP.
the4thheat 8:14AM (7/03/2009)
I can't believe there's people trying to argue that it's not any more visible. In less than optimal visibility a red blinker might just look like there's a car ahead slowing down in the next lane. So a bunch of people might not realize there's a car about to pull into their lane. Which would likely cause a fairly serious accident. A 5% reduction is great, and it's not like this regulation is some insanely difficult thing.
They have amber bulbs too, so tail lights with clear outers don't even have to have the side-mounted kind.
When people see amber they either think turn signal or hazard lights, and either way they'll pay attention. You don't get that with a car in a different lane showing red, since people are used to people in other lanes breaking. And amber is easily more visible in foggy/rainy conditions anyway.
tuxchown 9:09AM (7/03/2009)
the4thheat - Who argued that amber turn signals are not more visible? I see no such argument above. What I argue is that there is a claim in the article of amber signals being 5.3% more effective. That is the CLAIM. I argue that the reality may be even smaller than that especially when you factor in the fact that so many people don't even bother to use their signals. What you need to know most is when someone is braking and that is what brake lights are for including the third brake light. I seriously doubt that amber turn signals will prevent any accidents.
PiCASSO 10:14PM (7/03/2009)
I really hope that this DOES happen. I have waited to this for a long time. Both my wife Accord and my IS350 have amber turning signals, which I appreciate people behind us knowing when we are braking or preparing to change lanes/turn.
What's ironic is that Audi and BMW have equipped their USDM cars with red turning signals, when they can just ship them exactly as they are in Europe. Why spend the extra money for a unique taillight? Boggles the mind.