If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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: |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
>> 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Amber directionals
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Amber oil light issue | LJ | BMW | 0 | October 22nd 07 03:52 AM |
mirror directionals. | crusader | VW air cooled | 3 | February 12th 07 03:19 AM |
toyota directionals | mawa | Technology | 1 | July 7th 06 05:33 PM |
Amber Light | Bubba1 | Corvette | 10 | August 12th 05 06:15 AM |
"Amber Alert" signage in California | John Higdon | Driving | 3 | February 18th 05 09:46 PM |