Amber directionals

Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf

He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
I doubt the debate is over yet.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:07:08 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
>to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>
>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf
>
>He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
>I doubt the debate is over yet.

In figure 1, I assume we are disregarding what appears to be failure
to yield right of way and/or improper lane change on the part of the
signaling vehicle?

--
LBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops:
"Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take
the place of these two. "
--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2
Message ID:

necromancer wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:07:08 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>> Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
>> to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>>
>> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf
>>
>> He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
>> I doubt the debate is over yet.
>
> In figure 1, I assume we are disregarding what appears to be failure
> to yield right of way and/or improper lane change on the part of the
> signaling vehicle?

As if that's unusual? I'd just be happy if other drivers would pull far
enough ahead of me so that I am physically able to SEE their signals
before they cut me off.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> necromancer wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:07:08 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be
>>> able to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>>>
>>> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but
>>> somehow I doubt the debate is over yet.
>>
>> In figure 1, I assume we are disregarding what appears to be failure
>> to yield right of way and/or improper lane change on the part of the
>> signaling vehicle?
>
> As if that's unusual? I'd just be happy if other drivers would pull far
> enough ahead of me so that I am physically able to SEE their signals
> before they cut me off.
>
> nate
>

Here's the whole thing, if anyone cares

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT.../811%20037.pdf

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 2008-12-19, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> necromancer wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:07:08 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be
>>>> able to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but
>>>> somehow I doubt the debate is over yet.
>>>
>>> In figure 1, I assume we are disregarding what appears to be failure
>>> to yield right of way and/or improper lane change on the part of the
>>> signaling vehicle?
>>
>> As if that's unusual? I'd just be happy if other drivers would pull far
>> enough ahead of me so that I am physically able to SEE their signals
>> before they cut me off.
>>
>> nate
>>
>
> Here's the whole thing, if anyone cares
>
> http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT.../811%20037.pdf

It must be r.a.d is right week over at USDOT.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:07:08 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
>to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>
>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...008/811050.pdf
>
>He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
>I doubt the debate is over yet.
>
>nate

The debate was over long ago to anyone who was interested in what
happens in THE REAL WORLD. If there is any difference between the
accident rates that is attributable to turn signal color that
difference is so small as to be meaningless. This latest study pretty
much winds up at that endpoint. As the authors of this study point
out in the report, there has only been one real world study and it
found nothing that suggested we should bother changing to amber.
Another nail in the amber coffin is also pointed out in this study,
which is that with the CHMSL that is now ubiquitous it's even less
likely, even on a theoretical basis, that amber is going to make any
difference. But I'm sure the diehard amber lovers will not give up
the quest for the holy grail of turn signal light color. It's like the
governments quest to prove there is a some harmful medical effect from
marijuana. They have been funding studies on MJ for years looking for
something terrible and in spite of decades of work and millions spent,
they have found nothing. Both arguments will no doubt continue long
after Usenet has been terminated.

On Dec 19, 11:24*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:07:08 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
> >Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
> >to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>
> >http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...imedia/PDFs/Cr...
>
> >He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
> >I doubt the debate is over yet.
>
> >nate
>
> The debate was over long ago to anyone who was interested in what
> happens in THE REAL WORLD. *If there is any difference between the
> accident rates that is attributable to turn signal color that
> difference is so small as to be meaningless. *This latest study pretty
> much winds up at that endpoint. *As the authors of this study point
> out in the report, there has only been one real world study and it
> found nothing that suggested we should bother changing to amber.
> Another nail in the amber coffin is also pointed out in this study,
> which is that with the CHMSL that is now ubiquitous it's even less
> likely, even on a theoretical basis, that amber is going to make any
> difference. *But I'm sure the diehard amber lovers will not give up
> the quest for the holy grail of turn signal light color. It's like the
> governments quest to prove there is a some harmful medical effect from
> marijuana. *They have been funding studies on MJ for years looking for
> something terrible and in spite of decades of work and millions spent,
> they have found nothing. *Both arguments will no doubt continue long
> after Usenet has been terminated.

Years ago, I was trying to allow the placement of the "3rd stop light"
inside the car in California.
(I was very familiar with the DOT study on regular lights ((standard
vs flashing vs trio)) and was working to get the stipulation about
lights of any type inside the passenger compartment in California.) I
wants the change to cut down on problems with the likelihood of wire
damage causing problems when run through the trunk in a MickeyMouse
manner.

The head of the CHP tech section seemed to have a hair across his ass
on this subject, to the point of not allowing me to show him my own
installation at a time and place he could select.

Anyhpw, the assistant to the state senator with whom I was working
said that "roadblock" was to retire soon and the problem would be
solved. It was and the assistant, returned to.teaching and used my
case of an example of votor involvment.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>As if that's unusual? I'd just be happy if other drivers would pull far
>enough ahead of me so that I am physically able to SEE their signals
>before they cut me off.

Of course, that presumes that drivers actually USE their turn signals...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

>> In figure 1, I assume we are disregarding what appears to be failure
>> to yield right of way and/or improper lane change on the part of the
>> signaling vehicle?

> As if that's unusual? I'd just be happy if other drivers would pull far
> enough ahead of me so that I am physically able to SEE their signals
> before they cut me off.

Doing so would only enable you to cut them off.

And most states don't have a law making clear that a person changing
lanes must yield right-of-way. I wish they all did.

On Dec 19, 6:07*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Got this in my inbox today (long time readers of this group may be able
> to hazard a guess as to who sent it to me)
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles...imedia/PDFs/Cr...
>
> He posited that this might "close the book" on the subject, but somehow
> I doubt the debate is over yet.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
_________________________
It's very simple. It all boils down to MONEY. It's CHEAPER to mfg. a
R/W(red/white) tail assembly than to mfg. one that is R/W/A(red white
amber). The difference amounts to just pennies, but adds up to
thousands of dollars on a run of hundreds of cars on an assembly line.

And don't give me any "looks" crap - aesthetics is secondary to saving
money in the mfg process.

I would prefer the European standard, with amber turn signal lights.
I've been in a situation where I can see only the left(or right) side
tail light of a vehicle flashing - owing to the proximity of the
vehicle behind the one that is flashing - and don't know it is a turn
signal until I forward enough to see both side tail lights to know
that only one is flashing, hence a turn or lane change indication.

But of course America does what's right for America - not for the rest
of the world.

-CC