Dave Boland wrote:
> I've noticed that Honda, and some other mfg'rs. are going with the
> Detroit look and using red rear turn signals instead of the amber color
> used for years. Any official word on what's going on? I don't like it
> because amber seems to do a better job of catching attention day and night.
>
> Dave,
>
red turn signals are one of the most dangerous retrograde foolish
idiocies ever. the fact that honda of all people are doing it just
makes me /puke/.

truth is, in modern high speed freeway traffic, a single flash of an
orange turn signal from the car two ahead of you [and therefore
partially obscured] tells you that the vehicle is maneuvering. a single
flash of red tells you squat. do you get ready to brake? do you start
braking and have the tail-gater behind you slam your ass? do you try
closing up in anticipation of the person ahead being able to accelerate
now their obstruction has gone? and all this in nose-to-tail 70+mph
commuter traffic? at night?

the "red lens" rules exist /only/ because it allows certain other
manufacturers to save the incremental cents on two extra cable runs, two
bulbs and a switch. on a 1930's turnip truck with zero traffic density.
today's grand total saving less than $5 per vehicle in volume. but
spread over 1M vehicles, that's a nice $5M saving. that gives $500k
bonus for the genius manager that thinks red lenses are "ok". $500k
bonus for the bean counter/legal team that does the math indicating that
no class action from the families of bereaved could ever match annual
savings, $500k for political, er, "grease" to ensure no embarrassing
questions ever get raised on the subject, and $3.5M to the bottom line
to an ailing company that survives only on the strength of it's
marketing team, not it's product quality? and honda jump on this
bandwagon like it's some sort of identity panacea? blows my mind.