jim beam wrote:
> 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.
>

I guess my concerns are that if Honda, and perhaps other
manufacturers, want to cheapen the car in obvious ways, then"

1. What did they cheapen that I can't see, and that may be
more important?

2. If they want to follow the same business model as
Detroit, then why would anyone want to pay the thousands
extra for a Chevy or Ford wannabe?

3. Trying to raise prices and cut corners are one of the
milestones of a company's (or industry's) demise. What
seems to have happened is Detroit is going the way of the
buggy manufacturer, Japanese car manufacturers are becoming
the new Detroit, and (perhaps) the Korean manufacturers are
becoming what the Japanese were a few years ago.

I have owned Honda s since 1987, and Japanese since 1979.
It looks like time for a change. My guess is that Honda (if
my above analysis is correct) will see a drop in sales and
try to cut more corners to be cost competitive. Not at all
why we bought these cars, but that is the life of an industry.

Dave,