By signaling to oncoming traffic and vehicles approaching from the side, a front brake light provides an essential visual cue that a car is slowing down or preparing to stop. When the light is extinguished, it indicates that a stationary vehicle might initiate movement. According to Tomasch, this visual feedback can significantly truncate the reaction time for other road users, leading to shorter stopping distances and consequently diminishing the likelihood of accidents.
Sounds reasonable. Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again.
Theres a saying in computer stuff that applies nicely here. PEBKAC, problem exists between keyboard and computer…turn signals have to be turned on, no amount of engineering can fix bad driving.
Heads up, it’s actually keyboard and chair, not keyboard and computer
Dang it, sometimes I just type stuff and dont think about what I typed (the irony of what I was writing out)
I’ve actually always found it weird with all the automation vehicles have, that blinkers aren’t linked to the wheel. it already automatically disengages when turning, it shouldn’t be too hard to have it auto engage as well when turning
The thing is, you want the turn signal to turn on before the start of the turn, so other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists can react.
agreed, I don’t think the blinker switch should be removed, but a late indicator is better than no indicator.
So it sounds like you’re checking to see when the light turns off, to know that the car is going.
Sounds like what we actually need is a green accelerator light on the front of the car.
Maybe redo the driving test like… At least every 20 years? There are people on the roads who got their licenses when their town didn’t even had traffic lights. People who never saw a roundabout in their first 20 years of driving.
Its nice that we restrict young people by making them take more and more driving lessons and paying more for tiered licences, like we do in Europe for motorcycles and trucks.
But maybe also take a look at the 70+ year old grandpa who had two strokes and one heart attack, has two pairs of of glasses but his license says that he’s perfectly fit.
I always say there are drivers out there who only survive by the grace of other drivers.
Sometimes you see those videos from a dash cam of a truck that hits a bridge, obviously the truck driver was been being inattentive but often so was the recording cars driver. All I can ever think is, “why were you so close behind, it was blindingly obvious that was about to happen”, yet to them apparently it wasn’t, and now they’ve got bits of truck roof in their windscreen.
There was an astounding number of people who really cannot drive, and yet they think they’re driving safely. They just haven’t gotten a crash yet.
Because it wasn’t blindingly obvious? I don’t know how tall the truck in front of me is, and since I don’t drive tall vehicles I know even less about the heights of bridges. Usually commercial drivers are the better ones.
Well the thing that made it blindingly obvious was that it was a 30 second video of a tall truck driving full tilt toward a low bridge, so obviously something was about to happen!
Reading all such things I’m starting to think “what if I can drive?” I’ve always thought I can’t, but since everyone around who thinks they can drive like suicide bombers, maybe I should find those driving lessons.
IMO, the big problem is just a matter of standards and practicality. The bar for a DL is “can operate a vehicle” and not “can safely drive a vehicle in public for extended periods of time.” I agree with periodic re-licensing though; everything else called a “license” seems to need that for a host of reasons.
At least give them some new info like now it’s legal to go the wrong way on a bike if the speed limit is 30 km/h where I live. Guess not a lot of people know about that and a gazillion other things.
In Finland we have this thing called “huoli-ilmoitus” Super useful when you meet elders driving 70-80km/h in 100km/h area.
I have to contend with 70-80 year olds doing 30km in an 80 while swerving across the midline because they saw a bird across the street.
Yeah, like if someone crashes their car due their own stupidity, I’m not stopping to help. Darwin Awards and all that.
Here in France they drive at 70km/h in a 90km/h road. They also drive at 70 in a 70 road. And 70 in a 50 road. And 70 in a 30 road…
I see too many people treat a roundabout like a stop sign when it is clearly empty.
Sure but the second I lose my mobility I will put a deer slug through my head.
So risking everyone else’s life around you is worth it?
It isn’t a negociation. If some bureaucrat ticks that box, it will just be the end.
Why not move to a place where low mobility doesn’t cut you off from the rest of society?
There’s plenty of retirement communities where you can get around with a golf cart. In the 3 biggest cities here in SK, old folk can ride the subways for free, and sometimes you even see them drive mobility scooters on.
Other places I’ve been have level boarding for buses, but I’ve never seen someone drive a mobility scooter onto one. Certainly it wouldn’t fly in SK.
I don’t think I could afford to be homeless in SK.
No, being in poverty is really bad here, but I just picked SK out as a close example, old folk becoming recluses who only interact with Fox News and people serving them is pretty specific to American and/or car-centric culture. Hell even car-centric parts of america have retirement communities where they all drive scooters or golf cars.
Well in any case I’m here and not there and when that happens there won’t be money to go to some magical car free place. We have winter here and the groceries are 20 km away. There is no bus, no taxi and not even uber. Not that I would have the 60 bucks a ride would cost. Of course I would also lose my job which 60km away.
So deer slug to the brain will be the prescription.
I’d rather see mandatory rear running lights. The amount of people who can’t be arsed to turn on their lights in bad visibility conditions is too damn high.
and on the opposite side don’t turn on your emergency lights while driving in bad weather. you’re only causing confusion by making it seem like you have turn signals on if i can’t see both blinkers.
The hazards also override your turn signals so I now have no idea when you are going to attempt lane change.
The hazards are to indicate you are stopped and now a hazard.
Only when you are stopped and now a hazard. Your car becomes a blinking light. We have road rules for blinking lights, so it SHOULD be saying one specific thing.
Thank you for coming to this road safety talk.
They also indicate slow moving road hazards like a semi carrying an oversized load
and honestly i have the same problem with that intended use. it often looks like a stopped car is attempting to turn out into traffic. IMO emergency lights should have a faster blink pattern or something to differentiate from turn signals.
Faster blink is already used to indicate that one of the lights is burned out. It’s a consequence of the mechanical part that operates (used to operate) the blinking; less resistance caused by a burned out light means it blinks faster
How about reducing the brightness of headlights so I don’t feel like the sun is driving at me at night?
Also, if the car is in drive the headlights should go into auto mode. Always see people driving with just parking lights on at sundown.
Yes… WHY DO CARS STILL HAVE 2 SETTINGS LIKE ITS 1935. it would take basically zero effort to have low, high, stun for headlights so the rest of us who drive normal appropriate cars don’t have to be blinded by selfish assholes driving a massive truck alone by themselves that they never used for work once in their lives. Yes, im a car person and despise truck posers.
You say this like those same people won’t leave it on stun
Well yes they will, but at least it’s an option . Also a lot of vehicles have auto dimming now but they don’t work well and don’t last more than 6 years before the sensors get borked
There are now headlights that can be “high” but block out portions of the beam directed at light sources like oncoming headlights. Can’t have them in the US though.
Also known as the “fuck everyone not in a car”-setting
Higher up and brighter lights=driver can see more and feels safer. Yes, even if shadows and the area immediately arounds the car are less visible and the vehicle becomes more dangerous for everyone around you.
Reminded me of this Technology Connections video, in which the dude explained (among other brake-light related things) how some law allows electric vehicles to get away with not using their brake lights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0YW7x9U5TQ
I’m kind of surprised he made absolutely no mention of manual gearbox vehicles. Some of the problems he’s describing predate EVs and adaptive cruise. I have a manual car and motorcycle. I pretty regularly apply just enough to the brakes to turn the light on without engaging them during engine braking. Engine braking depending on gear choice can be pretty strong. Likely not as aggressive as a regenerative braking system but more than enough to cause issues. I’m certain I’d have been rear ended if I didn’t make the lights turn on while just slowing down, not coming to a full stop.
I feel like if your car is doing anything to actively slow itself down (as in apart from just cruising) it should turn the brake lights on.
First of all, this would be illegal in many countries.
Second of all: we can differentiate cars by: has red lights, back.
If we lose this option we can no longer differentiate easily if there is a car coming towards us or driving away from us.
They tested using a green light for the front brake light, not a red one
It is to colorblind people. You could use something else of course, just saying…
It’s doesn’t matter, since the absence or presence of light would still be perceived by colour blind people. It doesn’t change how they would drive, as they are already driving with the knowledge of colour blindness in mind when looking at tail lights.
A lot of colorblind people can tell the difference between red-green and white.
They just percieve red-green as the same.
So they lose the visual cue for front-back under the proposed change.
Flashing blue would be neat.
‘Here’s an idea: let all those around you know your status.’
‘Revolutionary!’
It’s weird we haven’t already done this, but good.
My status is in a relationship
Don’t get any ideas buddy
How do I set my car’s status to “It’s complicated”?
Wouldn’t better driving education and testing work just as well, if not better?
Shut up nerd
as with a lot of tests, the thing a driving test is the best at measuring is how well you can take a driving test.
I don’t understand this at all. Why do I, as a person in front of a vehicle, care whether or not it’s braking?
The key detail is that, like with rear brake lights, they extinguish when the foot is removed from the brake pedal. So it’s not so much the presence of the brake light, but the presence of an inactive brake light that would, serve as a warning that a car is about to start moving. This would be very helpful to drivers on a road when other drivers are pulling out too early from a side road or driveway. That little bit of extra warning is, in many situations, enough for you to pump the brakes, hit the horn, or both.
I get what you’re saying — so it’s about the subconscious awareness of the state change that happens after the driver decided to go, but before the car starts moving. I can see some amount of value in that.
I still can’t help but think it’s going to be interpreted by many as a sign that it’s safe to proceed and ignore the car rather than be prepared for any eventuality, though.
I agree that that would be a real danger, yes.
for example, say you are waiting to make a left turn, it would be nice to know if oncoming cars are braking or not. if they are stopped and you see their brake lights turning off, you can judge if you should hurry up or not turn at all.
My main thoughts instantly come to someone in the opposing left turn lane, if they are not applying the brakes they are likely starting to turn and if they do it right in front of you, you have more of a heads up than just them starting to turn and can set yourself in a better position to hopefully stop in time. Driving is all about judgment calls and having more info quicker is important to those calls.
But isn’t that exactly the situation we’re in now? If there’s a car in the opposing left turn lane, they might start to turn in front of you.
The only thing the light does is say “right now, they’re braking”. It doesn’t say whether they’re moving or stationary any more than the headlights, and it doesn’t say anything about their intentions or whether it’s safe to enter the intersection.
Say you’re a pedestrian and a car is coming toward you as you’re entering a crosswalk. Being able to see if they are braking or not could save your life.
If a car is braking it rides differently from one that isn’t. A car is normally rather level and leans “forward” when braking.
Besides that, YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING. If it’s moving fast enough that you need this, you shouldn’t be trying to get in front anyways.
For normal people, yes. This is to prevent accidents.
Again, if you’re too stupid to make sure the multiton hunk of metal is coming to a stop by all the other obvious visual markers, including watching it’s speed compared to stationary objects like signs and lamp posts, then this won’t do shit. People need more aweness of their surroundings, not a bunch of lights and horns because people won’t pay attention.
You enter the road when it’s safe, not jump in and play frogger with lights hoping to get across.
Yup, this is a moronic idea.
Sounds like it can help oncoming traffic as well as traffic to either side of the vehicle
Yeah, the only thing I could think of is that I’m driving down a country road, and I see the front brake light ahead of me because someone stopped for a deer in the road or something.
Otherwise I cannot fathom what benefit it brings. Anything that ultimately becomes “if you see this light, it’s safe to [X] in front of this vehicle” is going to get people killed.
And the negative state of “the lack of this light means that the vehicle could be moving” is exactly what we have now.
Reading through the article, it seems like one scenario is that a vehicle stopped at an intersection might be about to pull out, endangering another vehicle about to cross? It seems like the thinking is, if you notice a front/side brake light stops being lit as you approach the intersection, it might indicate they’re about to accelerate - be cautious!
I’m not fully convinced either, it seems like a lot of the benefit they’re projecting is based on analysis of historical collisions, rather than any kind of experimental results. It sounds like the study is to justify expanding research to that sort of simulated experimentation, though - I’m curious what that kind of testing would find.
Yeah, and then you have the distraction of people looking in the mirror because of lights behind them. Especially seeing lights behind you at night thinking it’s a police car
Definitely make it easier for people on crosswalks to start walking. Knowing that they are slowing down.
In order to be most effective it would need to be dynamic rather than a fixed on/off like rear brake lights. Stopping doesn’t mean stopped. So perhaps a progressive light bar that starts lighting up at 20mph and adds a light for each 5mph drop until the whole bar is lit indicating a full stop. That would give pedestrians a sense of rate of deceleration.
Can I have indicators that are in the same place on all cars and not buried in the headlight? That’d be cool.
Risk Compension predicts that drivers would simply use this new information to drive more aggressively, negating any possible safety benefits.
The classic example we already have of this is when you are stopped at a side road about to enter the main road, and a car coming towards you on the main road signals to turn in.
Many people take the fact the other car has their turn signal on as a guarantee that it’s safe to emerge, but any good driving instructor will tell you to wait until the car actually begins to turn before you yourself emerge.
They had their signal on but that doesn’t mean they’re actually going to DO what the signal said they would.
Same with the front brake light. It would be like “Well their front brake light came on, so I assumed it was safe to step into the crosswalk” NO. They could have just tapped the brake a second, doesn’t mean they saw you, or they will actually stop.
The Wilcot solution was adopted by Morris for the 1933 range, except the cheapest car in the range, the Minor. In essence, on either side of the car, was a block of three lights looking very like a traffic light with red, amber and green elements. The idea was that the colour or combination of the colours, showing on one or both sides would guide adjacent traffic of the intentions of the Morris.
Combinations were more complex, inevitably, than just flashing orange lights. Ahead of a need to indicate, the driver would activate the system which would start with both left and right amber lights flashing, like modern hazard warning lights, meaning “Caution”, ahead of an indication being given.
The system was controlled by a knob inside the car, with a spring based plunger acting as a time control for any selection. To indicate turning right, the driver would then request the system to show red on the right and green on the left in a way that almost echoes nautical practice; bearing right was amber on the right and green on the left.
–
Morris threw a tantrum after the MoT approved the use of blinkers on rival Ford cars and vowed never to install them. The MoT ordered the Wicot “traffic robots” removed and so Lucas trafficators were used exclusively in the UK until Morris was sold to Pressed Metal Holdings in the 1950s (in Australia and Canada blinkers were required by law).
The thousands of unusable traffic robots were used in the foundation for a new factory in Cowley. Also used were used brake pads and used sump oil to keep the dust down.
This sure riled people up.
I think they should have it so there’s a type of “slow down” light that supplements the brake light for when your deceleration is from taking your foot off the gas.
Please allow me this opportunity to jump in and complain about the minority, but not insignificant number, of people that don’t seem to be aware that that is even an option (just taking your foot off of the gas/accelerator to slowly decelerate).
Every couple weeks or so I seem to find myself behind someone that’s always either accelerating, or braking, with the brake lights repeatedly flashing on momentarily for no apparent reason. It’s like they realize that they’re going just a little faster than they want, and definitely don’t want to accelerate any more, so the only thing they know to do is hit the brake, instead of just taking their foot off of the accelerator. So they’ve hit the brake and now they’re going too slow, so foot moves off the brake and back to the accelerator. Rinse, lather, repeat.
End rant. Thank you for this opportunity to vent.
These people might be two-footed drivers. My mother used to do this and you’d see the brakes flash on and off while following behind her because she’d be hovering her foot on the brake pedal while also hitting the accelerator.
Those are definitely not people that ever learned to drive a manual transmission.
Every couple weeks or so I seem to find myself behind someone that’s always either accelerating, or braking, with the brake lights repeatedly flashing on momentarily for no apparent reason.
In many EVs and Hybrids the “letting off the accelerator” engages the regeneration drag which slows the car. A number of vehicle makers with particularly aggressive drag (which gets higher regen rates) automatically illuminate the brake lights. So if you’re behind one of these it will look like they are braking when they may have no foot on any pedal (brake or accelerator).
thanks for this information. Next time i see this I won’t be confused
Brake light activates before the brakes engages, so they could just be resting their foot on the brake while coasting. Pretty normal defensive driving technique. People tend to do it in heavier traffic or when people are tailgating them. Gives a way faster brake response.
This is actually insane. Their brakes must wear out so fast.
The brakes aren’t engaged? The light turns on before there’s pressure on the brake. They probably don’t even know their lights are on since they aren’t decelerating.
They might need to check their assumptions. It might not feel like the brake is engaged but it’s an expensive habit that causes unnecessary wear and tear. https://drivingmecrazyblog.com/2020/02/07/quit-riding-your-brakes/
deleted by creator
Please allow me this opportunity to jump in and complain about the minority, but not insignificant number, of people that don’t seem to be aware that that is even an option (just taking your foot off of the gas/accelerator to slowly decelerate).
😂 I feel your pain
Perhaps a short paragraph of text elaborating on the driver’s intentions
Now that’s taking things too far.
But the slow down thing can actually catch drivers by surprise, especially with electric vehicles.
