Advantage of Multi-Color Taillights?

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, y_p_w wrote:

>> imho, red means Stop, amber means Caution - directional signals should
>> be amber not to mention the improved visibility
>
> There's no standardization even with the same manufacturer. Honda seems
> to use both amber and red turn signals. Personally - I think amber
> takes out the ambiguity, unless the driver is color blind.

Even if the driver is colourblind, amber-directional/red-brake takes out
the ambiguity. The "red" and "amber" colour specs are very carefully
designed to be differentiable even with the most common forms of
colourblindness.

Interestingly, most debates around rear directional colour centre around
conspicuity and clarity of the directional signal. The primary
*demonstrated* advantage of amber rear directionals compared to red ones
is that following drivers react significantly more quickly and accurately
to the _brake lamps_ on a vehicle equipped with amber directions (Sivak &
Flannagan, 1995).

DS

In article ich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
>
>Interestingly, most debates around rear directional colour centre around
>conspicuity and clarity of the directional signal. The primary
>*demonstrated* advantage of amber rear directionals compared to red ones
>is that following drivers react significantly more quickly and accurately
>to the _brake lamps_ on a vehicle equipped with amber directions (Sivak &
>Flannagan, 1995).

Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional
isn't visible as amber when it isn't lit.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>> Interestingly, most debates around rear directional colour centre
>> around conspicuity and clarity of the directional signal. The primary
>> *demonstrated* advantage of amber rear directionals compared to red
>> ones is that following drivers react significantly more quickly and
>> accurately to the _brake lamps_ on a vehicle equipped with amber
>> directions (Sivak & Flannagan, 1995).
>
> Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional isn't
> visible as amber when it isn't lit.

Good question. Not tested, to my knowledge. I would imagine the effect is
still present, but possibly not as strong and/or with delayed onset.

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
t:

> In article ich.edu>,
> Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
>>
>>Interestingly, most debates around rear directional colour centre
>>around conspicuity and clarity of the directional signal. The primary
>>*demonstrated* advantage of amber rear directionals compared to red
>>ones is that following drivers react significantly more quickly and
>>accurately to the _brake lamps_ on a vehicle equipped with amber
>>directions (Sivak & Flannagan, 1995).
>
> Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional
> isn't visible as amber when it isn't lit.
>

Well,the reactions were to the BRAKE lamps,so naturally the ambers would
NOT be lit anyways.
That's the way I read it.
(although stray light from the red brake lights would illuminate the amber
lenses somewhat.)


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Matthew Russotto wrote:


>
> Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional
> isn't visible as amber when it isn't lit.
>

If it DOES hold up in the study, that only proves that the study is
somehow flawed or the result is within the statistical error bars for
the study.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Steve wrote:

>> Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional isn't
>> visible as amber when it isn't lit.

> If it DOES hold up in the study, that only proves that the study is
> somehow flawed or the result is within the statistical error bars for
> the study.

....or that you haven't read the study and don't know what you're talking
about.

DS (smack!)

Yeah, and perhaps bulbs used only for turn signals will take longer to
burn out than bulbs also used for other purposes. (The alternative,
which is that drivers back up to a reflective store window or walk
around the car or something and *check* their lights once in a while,
seems like far too much to ask.)

> Interestingly, most debates around rear directional colour centre around
> conspicuity and clarity of the directional signal. The primary
> *demonstrated* advantage of amber rear directionals compared to red ones
> is that following drivers react significantly more quickly and accurately
> to the _brake lamps_ on a vehicle equipped with amber directions (Sivak &
> Flannagan, 1995).

Well, that's really just the other side of the coin of ambiguity, isn't
it? (With amber turn signals you know immediately what a flash of red
must mean.)

--Joe "Alas, either kind of directional only works if the driver uses
'em" Chew

In article >,
Steve > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional
>> isn't visible as amber when it isn't lit.
>>
>
>If it DOES hold up in the study, that only proves that the study is
>somehow flawed or the result is within the statistical error bars for
>the study.

There's nothing like deciding the outcome in advance of the facts.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hmm. I wonder if that holds even when the amber rear directional
>>>isn't visible as amber when it isn't lit.
>>>
>>
>>If it DOES hold up in the study, that only proves that the study is
>>somehow flawed or the result is within the statistical error bars for
>>the study.
>
>
> There's nothing like deciding the outcome in advance of the facts.

You miss the point.

If the amber light is there, but is not on during brake lamp testing and
is never seen as amber when off and yet it STILL seems to influence the
study, then there is either a flaw or a coincidence.

Now, if the study is limited to measuring the brake lamp reaction times
whenever the turn signals are ALSO on, then the point doesn't stand
because the signal lamps WILL be seen as amber in that case.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, y_p_w wrote:
>
> >> imho, red means Stop, amber means Caution - directional signals should
> >> be amber not to mention the improved visibility
> >
> > There's no standardization even with the same manufacturer. Honda seems
> > to use both amber and red turn signals. Personally - I think amber
> > takes out the ambiguity, unless the driver is color blind.
>
> Even if the driver is colourblind, amber-directional/red-brake takes out
> the ambiguity. The "red" and "amber" colour specs are very carefully
> designed to be differentiable even with the most common forms of
> colourblindness.
>
> Interestingly, most debates around rear directional colour centre around
> conspicuity and clarity of the directional signal. The primary
> *demonstrated* advantage of amber rear directionals compared to red ones
> is that following drivers react significantly more quickly and accurately
> to the _brake lamps_ on a vehicle equipped with amber directions (Sivak &
> Flannagan, 1995).
>
> DS

By now most of us are conditioned to interpret two (or three) steady
bright red lights as a indicating the car ahead is slowing while a
single flashing light means the car may be turning and dual flashing
lights means the car is either stopped or is having some sort of
problem. I can see where there may be some added benefit to having
amber colored turns. But the number of lights lit and their action are
the way we interpret the intentions of the next driver.