What is Digg?95 Comments
- 32bitwonder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+60Agreed. Another passive safety feature I believe should be made mandatory in North America is rear amber signal lights which I believe is already mandatory outside North America. There has been a disturbing trend lately where even European and and Asian cars sold in North America have also switched to red signal lights (rear) along with North American manufacturers.
I have never understood why it is a good idea to have red signal lights. RED MEANS STOP! A red turn signal also blends too easily with the brake lights and under the right circumstances can cause temporary confusion for the driver behind such a vehicle. On vehicles with combined brake and signal lights, this is even worse. Take for example a car who's right brake/signal light has burned out and the person driving is tapping the brake to slow the car on a slippery surface. To the person driving behind, it simply looks like the left turn signal/brake is turning on and off. This could indicate the person ahead intends on turning or braking, after all - the person driving behind may not be aware that the right indicator bulb is burned out.
One could argue that the third brake light could help to negate the issue, and indeed it might, but how often do you see cars with those lights burned out as well?
Wikipedia has some more information on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Turn_signal_colour - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+47Think they could invent something that makes people use their turn signals?
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -19/+45I don't understand people who want cars to take away more of their control. It's sort of like people who want government to take away more of their freedoms. Give me a 5-speed, no ABS, no TCS, no STM, 4-banger any day of the week over the nanny cars that are coming out these days. They just make people poorer drivers than they already are because they think these technologies will save them from any stupid driving mistakes they make.
- patience, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26I am reading this while driving.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Just like the high mounted brake light, it will only work for a short while.
This works because your eye isn't used to it, and you find the light startling. This was true of the high-mounted brake light at one time too.
But over time, people will become used to this too and the rear end collisions will return to the same rates as before, just like with the high-mounted brake light. - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22They need to get Samuel L. Jackson to do commercials promoting the use of turn signals.
BLINKERS *****, DO YOU USE THEM? - HRH.King.Lerxst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19General, I second your comment about having a 5-speed, etc....but I wouldn't buy a new car without ABS....it's a valuable tool that can make your granny brake like Prost or Senna. I'll take that any day.
- endlessoul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I brainstormed about this a while back, in a way. The article doesn't have pictures to illustrate exactly what's going on, but my idea is this: Make the brake lights "climb" in correlation with the amount of pressure applied to the brake. Think of the speech bars on KITT from Knight Rider.
For example, I lightly apply the brake, and the bottom 2 of the 10-15 bars light up. I slam on the brakes with full force, all 15 bars illuminate.
This could help drivers some distance back see that someone is slamming on their brakes, and plan accordingly. Such as slowing down. - sinembarg0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@GeneralAntilles
I don't want them to take control away from _me_, I want them to take control away from the people who can't drive properly. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10No. The brake light is a signal that you are slowing down. When you slow down, it can mean about a million things. I can't read your mind but I can see the back of your car. The turn signal tells me your intentions, which are absolutely necessary for me to know if I'm going to drive safely around you. Don't try to justify your laziness or absent-mindedness. It's not courtesy - letting someone merge in front of you is courtesy. Using your signals is essential to safety.
Also, use the "reply" button if you're going to "reply" to my post, no one wants to go digging around for responses way down the page. - Goner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8and your name is "patience"? wait till you get home!
- osiris24x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10BMW is developing a variable voltage brake light. Basically the harder you press the brake pedal, the brighter it gets. Additionally, they're optimizing the pathway from the brake pedal to the lights themselves, so that the brake light kicks in sooner, when the pedal is depressed.
It's good to see technology being put to use to save lives, instead of take them. - mrmagenta, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@32bit wonder
yellow means go faster - lucid270, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8hell, I'm still trying to break myself of the habit of using them in parking lots when no one is around...
- osiris24x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Mercedes has such a system on their higher end (100k+) cars. Sadly, we won't see this technology on the average every day car, for decades.
- fritzbrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ mehworld:
The law is the same in the States. In every state I've lived in (5) the law states that you must signal your intentions to change lanes, turn, etc...
Unfortunately, you take a test when your sixteen, fifteen in some states, and that's it for the rest of your life.
Here in Miami I think they just issue the license when you get your first bike, "Hey the kid can balance on two wheels so four wheels will make him even better". - mehworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Dunno about where your from but here in Australia when I did my driving course we have to do Mirror, Signal, Brake...
We are taught to not even brake until we signal, which I think its quite reasonable because not everyone is a mind reader and can tell what your next move might be after braking. As for courteous, its the law here and I agree with it 100%, I dont even think about signaling to turn anymore I just do it before a turn because thats the way I was taught, it gets stuck in your head and you do it automatically... How much of an effort does it take to flick a bar up or down on the steering column before you turn? - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, people would be like - oh I don't need to brake, it's only filling up like a third of the OH *****
- ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@GeneralAntilles
> They just make people poorer drivers than they already are because they think these technologies will save them from any stupid
> driving mistakes they make.
I agree 100%. People have all these features already yet some still treat turn signal lights like they are xmas lights.
Fear junkies will push anything. I just hope we won't all end up driving tanks. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Although this sounds like a reasonable idea, it is actually terrible. It relies on, in essence, an optical illusion, which may slightly work differently for different people and different manufacturers. It creates a perceptual disconnect from the real world. It may train you to unconsciously expect a similar behavior on non-prepared stimuli, causing you to react more slowly in other circumstances. I don't expect many people to understand what I'm talking about...but this kind of artificial environment manipulation makes for poorly adapted people. I consider electronic children's toys with no natural causal behavior (press Elmo's hand, he giggles?) to retard childhood development, compared to "natural" toys like blocks, which behave predictably and in accordance with the behavior of generic objects, developing useful hand-eye coordination and awareness of gravity, etc.
- kevptim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That makes perfect sense. Even a triple brightness setting would help dramatically. Running lights, brake lights and hard break lights.
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"out of 365,000,000 - 999,999,999 crashes"
Way to make up ***** numbers. The DOT estimated 6,159,000 crashes in the US in 2005 ( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2005.pdf [Warning, PDF]). You're off by an order of magnitude. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4BMW already has variable size/brightness taillights on 3 series in the US.
And optimizing the brake path? You're falling for marketing blather. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think they just need to expand the concept of the center brake light to the width of the car. Give me just the center light (same as now) when the driver gently presses on the brake, and expand it gradually to the entire width of the car the harder they press on the brake. It would be cheap to implement, and it'd give great feedback on whether the driver ahead is just trying to slow down a few MPH or stop in a hurry.
- mehworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mfichifichi the brake light means they are braking, aka slowing down or slowing down to a stop. Its common sense to read the traffic and decide what course of action you should take if that means slowing down to match the person in front of you who just braked also then thats what you do.. I do hope other people drive safely, I actually assume everyone tries to drive safely, unless your a suicidal maniac with no regard for your own life or others in which case you shouldn't even be driving. Just keep in mind next time your out on the road that driving is one of the most dangerous daily activities everyday people do, and if signaling before you turn is considered courteous to you then maybe you should be courteous every minute your in a car, because its not just your life that you could be saving by flicking that lil indicator.
- rkzda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+332bitwonder: They are phasing that out mostly it seems. Most small to mid-size suvs, and new cars that I have seen do have amber signal lights. Though many trucks do not. My Ranger has just red signal/braking. And though it does look aesthetically superior(IMO) it isn't the best. I have considered switching my tails over to pre-98 aftermarket, but I'd have to do some rewiring for the 3 bulb setup..
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not exactly compelling without pictures. In fact, it's merely conjecture, brainstorming, or "what-if."
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Hands free cell phones DO NOT make the situation safer. It's about the mental distraction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety
Several studies have shown that motorists have a much higher risk of collisions and losing control of the vehicle while talking on the mobile telephone simultaneously with driving, even when using "hands-free" systems.
Research indicates that using a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving while intoxicated and cell phone use while driving is far more prevalent than drunk-driving. - djames82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i don't care what the *study* says...if there's an @sshat riding your bumper (1.5 inches space in between) - a simple tap in the brake means collison.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It IS against the law to not signal when turning or changing lanes -- inmost places it's called "Failure to signal." Unfortunately officers only choose to enforce this very selectively, typically when they're looking to pull someone over whom they consider otherwise suspicious.
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"But over time, people will become used to this too and the rear end collisions will return to the same rates as before, just like with the high-mounted brake light."
Not at night. The proposed system appears to be indistinguishable from a car that's stopping more quickly, at least in conditions where all you can see are the brake lights. So unless people are able to suspend their brains' built-in distance estimation, this should remain effective indefinitely (during nighttime driving, at least). - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"it'd give great feedback on whether the driver ahead is just trying to slow down a few MPH or stop in a hurry."
While I'd very much *like* to agree, adding extra cognition into the mix would probably end up decreasing reaction time, causing even more accidents. - mfichifichi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exactly, you can't read minds, and so I would suggest you take the stop light literally or take your chances. There are a lot of deer and kangaroos out there. The brake light does not mean 'slowing down' and never has, you take it for granted that /usually/ it means slow down. Seriously - if you must make an assumption, assume they are stopping, suddenly - for no good reason. Don't be hoping that other people are driving safely, but yes, I believe that it would be nice if they did..
Sry, I didn't see the 'reply' thing. - norcalscan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The signal to the brake lights travel faster down the wire. Earlier the electricity took its sweet time getting there, much like the old lady in the fast lane...
- rkzda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I agree. I use mine 99% of the time, I rarely forget, and not usually when it will put me or another driver at risk.
- mattsommer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@osiris24x -- I've always thought that was a great idea... I think it would help a TON if the brakes got brighter the harder someone was braking
- Erik1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can't expect everyone to be "proactive," you have to cater to the masses when you design a product, and lets face it, the masses are stupid.
- 8ight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I really have had the variable brake light idea stored in my head since i was 16 when first started driving... 13 years ago. It just seemed like the right thing to do. It's often hard to judge if someone has slammed on the brakes for some reason... as opposed to gradually slowing down to make a turn. Yea, you should have the added cue that a turn is coming by the first in front of you who _should_ be using the damn turn signal... but most jackholes don't use theirs. I think cops should pull over people not using turn signals like they do people not wearing seat belts. One puts yourself in danger, the other puts you and others in danger. Anyway, variable brake system! My one bright (get it) idea.... glad it's starting to take shape.
- ijustam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't see what the big deal is. If you're actually paying attention to what's going on around you, you can analyze the situation and then use logic to determine your next move.
Situation 1: Brake lights are on, but the car in front of you does not appear to be slowing down very quickly at all. Most likely let off the gas and see if this is enough negative acceleration to keep me from rear ending the car, otherwise begin braking.
Situation 2: Brake lights are on, the-car-in-front-of-me's ass goes up and slows down extremely quickly. Most likely be on the brakes heavily as a precaution until situation can analyzed further.
Situation 3: Car in front of me is slowing down but shows no signals at all. Turn coming up? If no, swear loudly. If yes, assume they are turning and chastise them mentally for not using signals and go about my merry way.
Be proactive and you won't need lights and buzzers to tell what's going on. - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The article doesn't have pictures to illustrate exactly what's going on"
What I gathered from the wording of the article is that your brake lights (left, center, right) from a triangle that visually expands as someone approaches the vehicle from behind. Using some sensors to estimate distance/speed of the vehicle behind you, combined with a sort of light array for each brake light (left, center, right), you can cause the "triangle" to expand more quickly than if the lights were stationary. This gives the illusion to the person behind you that they're approaching your vehicle faster than they really are, and thus they brake sooner. - SlowOnTheUptake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ISTR there was an add-on product along this line called "Cyberlight" marketed in the early 80s. It was an additional red light which you wired to your existing brake lights. It would flash at a rate proportional to the rate at which you were decelerating, i.e the harder you hit the brakes, the faster it flashed. The idea was that it would get the attention of the driver behind you because something was changing, rather than simply being off or on. I don't know if the maker had any research to show that this actually worked, but that was the claim anyway.
It never caught on, I suspect because it was pretty expensive, the kit cost about $100 and I don't know how much to install if you couldn't do it yourself. I'd imagine it would be pretty cheap to make such a thing today using the those accelerometer chips they use to protect disk drives. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you brake hard you should try to also turn slightly left or right. The human brain is very easy to lull into carelessness if the item in front of them stays only in a straight line. Once the object breaks right or left it sets off the "hey dummy, pay attention" routines.
- mrfreeziexp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I always thought that they should have a different brake light system. Maybe one that has 3 bars , the higher it goes, the harder the brake is being pushed.
Anyone who's driven on a highway knows that when you see someone braking, you can only guess about how fast they are stopping.. - Throwmeabone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1After being rear ended once, I'm always anxious about having to brake hard and the person behind me not paying attention and hitting me. Now I've started tapping the brakes to get their attention.
- SarahC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"hat about a strip of LED's with prisms to direct the light?
As you get closer to the car, the lights further out are directed towards you! Simple, cheap and easy! - idc5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder if Paul Milgram from this experiment is related to Stanley Milgram.
I don't even use my brakes sometimes, cuz I make use of engine braking with downshifts. I wonder if this is considered "risky"? - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you're dealing with mud, snow, ice, or dried leaves ABS is actually more dangerous as it doesn't let the tires dig into the junk and get down to the road surface where there's traction. Most people don't understand how ABS operates and just assumes that it'll get them out of any dangerous situation, which is why I think it would be better not to have it as nobody would have an delusions about how well the brakes will work.
- KuntaKinte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1unless the dmv makes senior citizen licenses invalid, we will continue to have hundreds of thousands of collisions due to these zombies, ask the UNC maskot
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think the study suggested that these lights would make it okay to drive 1.5 inches from someone else. When has that ever even happened in real life? Even the worst tailgaters are like 2 feet behind, this isn't Initial D buddy.
- ericdano, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Ok. First it was putting a third brake light on. I think what we really need is to make it harder to get a license to begin with, and require drivers to take a test if they have more than 2 accidents a year (minor), one major accident, or get more than 2 moving violations a year.
Can we also make it against the law to move and not signal? I NEVER see anyone use their signals. Why do we even bother putting them on cars?
Oh, and make it illegal to talk on a cellphone if you are NOT using a handsfree set. -
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is