Liquid crystal in auto lights?

On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:28:26 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:51:30 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Meanwhile, it's been robustly demonstrated NUMEROUS times over the
>> >> >years that drivers more quickly and more accurately aquire turn signals
>> >> >as turn signals and brake lights as brake lights when turn signals are
>> >> >of the separate amber variety. Twelve years ago, Sivak and Flannagan at
>> >> >UMTRI showed a very large *and* significant improvement in the speed
>> >> >(110msec improvement on average) and accuracy (think 20% improvement on
>> >> >average, study's not in front of me) of following drivers to a car's
>> >> >brake lights when the braking car had amber rear signals compared to
>> >> >red. And there are at least a dozen other studies going back several
>> >> >decades that reach the comparable conclusions.
>> >
>> >> Yeah and none of that has translated into REAL WORLD differences in
>> >> what makes a turn/brake signal more/less safe.
>> >
>> >As far as you know. The proper research hasn't been done, and probably
>> >can't be while adhering to the River of Blood standard of "proof of
>> >benefit". The RoB method was probably an appropriate starting point back
>> >in the '60s when the problem of auto safety was first being attacked. You
>> >have to start somewhere! As the grosser aspects of the problem are
>> >addressed, the severity of the remaining problems decreases until
>> >eventually RoB is no longer of sufficient resolution to discern safety
>> >benefits. That's where risk analysis comes into play, but NHTSA doesn't do
>> >risk analysis, just RoB. In fact, when FAA and NHTSA had a regulatory
>> >liason meeting recently, FAA's reps said "We're not sure why we're
>> >here...if we used NHTSA's methods, we'd only ever be able to do anything
>> >after planes fell out of the sky. We prefer to prevent planes falling out
>> >of the sky in the first place."
>> >
>> >> The BOTTOM line remains that it's of no significance whether the turn
>> >> signals are red or amber.
>> >
>> >Incorrect. There is no such bottom line, one way or the other, but there's
>> >a whole hell of a lot of data supporting amber rather than red, and none
>> >the other way around. Remember, the absence of evidence does NOT
>> >constitute evidence of absence.
>> >
>> >DS
>>
>> Wrong, there is no absence of evidence. The study has been done.
>> There is simply no benefit IN THE REAL WORLD to amber over red. In
>> addition to which one can do the same kind of "what if's" based on lab
>> and theory and speculation to "prove" that red is overall better then
>> amber because it REDUCES CRITICAL ambiguity. If you aren't sure if
>> the person ahead is stopping or turning most people are going to
>> assume stopping, which is generally going to be the safer assumption.
>
>So, you are in the left lane on the freeway and you are trying to change
>lanes to the right to catch your exit. Everyone assumes you are slowing
>down and passes you on the right, figuring that you are just another
>moron in the left lane tapping your brakes. No accident. No statistics.
>But I've seen many people who wonder why nobody will let them change
>lanes.

Why would they assume I'm slowing down? Somehow none of these awful
terrible things that supposedly happen due to the tragic absence of
amber turn signals ever seems to happen in the real world.
--
New service to compete with paypal
Get $25 pre-registration bonus by
following this link
www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u

I can't imagine anything from first principles that would signal your
intentions more clearly and unambiguously under more circumstances than
a separate luminary, distinct in color and position and used for no
other purpose.

Show of hands: anybody see amber lights in use at the rear of a car,
or blinking yellow lights anywhere on it, for any other reason than a
turn signal or its cousin, hazard lights? That's what I thought. Red
ones, on the other hand, have altogether enough meanings already.

Separating the functions would seem to make trailer wiring less of a
science project as well; and Lord knows enough trailer owners need all
the help they can get in this department. In practice, of course, the
predominance of combined-function, all-red schemes (handmaiden of the
desire to make it all as cheap as possible) on existing tow vehicles
means that adapter kits would be around forever.

(So would trailers with lights that grow brighter and dimmer without
rhyme or reason and only blink for potholes. People's interesting
theories about what does or doesn't conduct electricity, and does or
doesn't continue to do so after years in the weather, has a lot to do
with this, of course. And if you think the trailer is fun, you
should see the boat -- or their house! This great land is full of
strange and wonderful homemade things that you wouldn't want to touch
at the same time as the water faucet. But I digress.)

In an ideal world, perhaps a separate amber light AND one of the red
ones used for other purposes would always be made to flash as turn
signals, at the cost of greater complication. That way you'd put more
bulbs, and thus more redundancy, in the hands of people who basically
never need to walk 'round their car or avail themselves of a reflective
store window or whatnot to see if any of them are burned out.

Well, maybe the combined visible and audible warning from my old
Thunderbird with its sequential turn signals is better, but never mind
that. I guess you lose the acoustic aspect when the electromechanical
sequencer package finally packs it in and you replace it with the
completely electronic kind.

The larger problem, of course, is that a lot of people aren't using
their turn signals, or aren't looking when you use yours; and among
those who *do* notice, all too many interpret the information you've
courteously provided as "close ranks to prevent merging" or "last
chance to pass on this side." But don't get me started.

--Joe

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:28:26 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> > wrote:

[snip]

> >So, you are in the left lane on the freeway and you are trying to change
> >lanes to the right to catch your exit. Everyone assumes you are slowing
> >down and passes you on the right, figuring that you are just another
> >moron in the left lane tapping your brakes. No accident. No statistics.
> >But I've seen many people who wonder why nobody will let them change
> >lanes.
>
> Why would they assume I'm slowing down? Somehow none of these awful
> terrible things that supposedly happen due to the tragic absence of
> amber turn signals ever seems to happen in the real world.

Because all they can see is your brake light blinking at them.

I've seen too many people stuck in a left lane (a few do come to a
complete stop) because nobody can tell that they want to change lanes.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated to the unrestricted propagation of worthless
information across the Internet.

On Wed, 04 May 2005 14:50:02 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:28:26 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> > wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >So, you are in the left lane on the freeway and you are trying to change
>> >lanes to the right to catch your exit. Everyone assumes you are slowing
>> >down and passes you on the right, figuring that you are just another
>> >moron in the left lane tapping your brakes. No accident. No statistics.
>> >But I've seen many people who wonder why nobody will let them change
>> >lanes.
>>
>> Why would they assume I'm slowing down? Somehow none of these awful
>> terrible things that supposedly happen due to the tragic absence of
>> amber turn signals ever seems to happen in the real world.
>
>Because all they can see is your brake light blinking at them.
>

Um, if it's blinking it means I'm signaling a lane change. And if it
was just the brakes being applied the "signal" never, in my
experience, last more then two flashes. Not that it matters, it takes
more then that for the signal to accomplish anything whether it's
amber or red and the whole issue becomes moot. The "amber v red" is
such an incredible trivial issue it's really amazing how worked up
some people get over it. It's an interesting discussion at times,
more for the way it exposes people thought processes then for any
light it sheds on any actual real world issue that needs to be
addressed.

Those who claim it has some meaningful safety benefit always fall mute
when asked why, if they are so strongly pushing for amber turns, they
are not pushing even stronger for a law requiring we all wear helmets
while driving since that would unquestionably save lives.


>I've seen too many people stuck in a left lane (a few do come to a
>complete stop) because nobody can tell that they want to change lanes.

They know they want to change lanes, they just don't want to let them
in. It would be no different if they had amber lenses.
--
New service to compete with paypal
Get $25 pre-registration bonus by
following this link
www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:28:26 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> > > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >So, you are in the left lane on the freeway and you are trying to change
> > >lanes to the right to catch your exit. Everyone assumes you are slowing
> > >down and passes you on the right, figuring that you are just another
> > >moron in the left lane tapping your brakes. No accident. No statistics.
> > >But I've seen many people who wonder why nobody will let them change
> > >lanes.
> >
> > Why would they assume I'm slowing down? Somehow none of these awful
> > terrible things that supposedly happen due to the tragic absence of
> > amber turn signals ever seems to happen in the real world.
>
> Because all they can see is your brake light blinking at them.
>
> I've seen too many people stuck in a left lane (a few do come to a
> complete stop) because nobody can tell that they want to change lanes.
>

You're right! Whenever I see someone signalling a lane
change with a blinking red light, as defined by one side
blinking and the middle and other side not, then I
will pretend that I can't figure out that they're signalling
and won't let them over. On the other hand, if I see a
separate amber light blinking then I pretend that I can
easily tell that they're signalling and let them right over.

Meh.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Um, if it's blinking it means I'm signaling a lane change. And if it
> was just the brakes being applied the "signal" never, in my
> experience, last more then two flashes.

Or someone tapping their brakes. Or a loose switch (figure that a
company which saves a few cents on colored plastic probably uses crappy
switches as well). By the time I figure it out, you got cut off.

> Not that it matters, it takes
> more then that for the signal to accomplish anything whether it's
> amber or red and the whole issue becomes moot. The "amber v red" is
> such an incredible trivial issue it's really amazing how worked up
> some people get over it. It's an interesting discussion at times,
> more for the way it exposes people thought processes then for any
> light it sheds on any actual real world issue that needs to be
> addressed.

Its an indication of the sort of analysis that US auto manufacturers do
when it comes to safety and cost tradeoffs. But then it appears that the
bond rating companies have just passed their own judgement on the
remaining two US manufacturers: junk.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

The big three are just using the confluence of events to force the UAW
to give up concessions. If you think for a minute that after earnings
rase from 1.4 billion in 2001 to 2.4 billion in 2003 that they are
really hurting and it is out of their control your dreaming. They knew
back in teh 60's and 70's when the unions were out of control that they
could give all the employee benefits for the future and then claim
insolvency when pay up time came.

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Um, if it's blinking it means I'm signaling a lane change. And if
it
> > was just the brakes being applied the "signal" never, in my
> > experience, last more then two flashes.
>
> Or someone tapping their brakes. Or a loose switch (figure that a
> company which saves a few cents on colored plastic probably uses
crappy
> switches as well). By the time I figure it out, you got cut off.
>
> > Not that it matters, it takes
> > more then that for the signal to accomplish anything whether it's
> > amber or red and the whole issue becomes moot. The "amber v red"
is
> > such an incredible trivial issue it's really amazing how worked up
> > some people get over it. It's an interesting discussion at times,
> > more for the way it exposes people thought processes then for any
> > light it sheds on any actual real world issue that needs to be
> > addressed.
>
> Its an indication of the sort of analysis that US auto manufacturers
do
> when it comes to safety and cost tradeoffs. But then it appears that
the
> bond rating companies have just passed their own judgement on the
> remaining two US manufacturers: junk.
>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Um, if it's blinking it means I'm signaling a lane change. And if it
> > was just the brakes being applied the "signal" never, in my
> > experience, last more then two flashes.
>
> Or someone tapping their brakes. Or a loose switch (figure that a
> company which saves a few cents on colored plastic probably uses crappy
> switches as well). By the time I figure it out, you got cut off.
>
> > Not that it matters, it takes
> > more then that for the signal to accomplish anything whether it's
> > amber or red and the whole issue becomes moot. The "amber v red" is
> > such an incredible trivial issue it's really amazing how worked up
> > some people get over it. It's an interesting discussion at times,
> > more for the way it exposes people thought processes then for any
> > light it sheds on any actual real world issue that needs to be
> > addressed.
>
> Its an indication of the sort of analysis that US auto manufacturers do
> when it comes to safety and cost tradeoffs. But then it appears that the
> bond rating companies have just passed their own judgement on the
> remaining two US manufacturers: junk.

Although you're free to interpret the bond rating change
any way you want, the reason for the rating change is because
GM's sales are plummeting on the big gas-sucking SUVs that
they bet their farm on, that's nothing at all to do with
quality.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

The loss in market share is only a catalyst for S&P's downgrade,
Mooddy's and Fitch still have them at investment grade. When they
downgrade debt to junk it means they see a low chance of the debt
actualy being paid, meaning that other debts will be paid before your
bond (i.e. healthcare, pension, operating loan int...) This is a
cashflow issue, only realted to market share in so much as profitable
lines generate positive cash sooner than less profitable lines. If you
get rid of the cash burden (healthcare, pension...) you get rid of the
low likelyhood that your bonds will be repaid.

This whole issue is a seperate one from competition, I can remember in
the 80's when the japanese were taking over and the big 3 were going
down. Chrysler in the 90's anyone? Companies of that size don't go
down, they just move slow.

Plus look at it this way, the fastest growing economy in the world is
China (allthough their reporting is shading). Do you really think that
the japanese automakers will have an easy time capturing that market.
I am good friends with a lot of japanese and chinese people, and a lot
of eastern europeans. The only groups they dislike each other more
than the japanese and chinese are the serbs and croations and the jews
and the palestinians. 2.1 million Buicks are expected to be built in
China. Too bad that's not on the front page...I wonder why?

On Fri, 06 May 2005 16:39:35 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Um, if it's blinking it means I'm signaling a lane change. And if it
>> was just the brakes being applied the "signal" never, in my
>> experience, last more then two flashes.
>
>Or someone tapping their brakes. Or a loose switch (figure that a
>company which saves a few cents on colored plastic probably uses crappy
>switches as well). By the time I figure it out, you got cut off.
>
>> Not that it matters, it takes
>> more then that for the signal to accomplish anything whether it's
>> amber or red and the whole issue becomes moot. The "amber v red" is
>> such an incredible trivial issue it's really amazing how worked up
>> some people get over it. It's an interesting discussion at times,
>> more for the way it exposes people thought processes then for any
>> light it sheds on any actual real world issue that needs to be
>> addressed.
>
>Its an indication of the sort of analysis that US auto manufacturers do
>when it comes to safety and cost tradeoffs. But then it appears that the
>bond rating companies have just passed their own judgement on the
>remaining two US manufacturers: junk.
>

Ah, I'm glad we finally know what the real problem is with the
domestic makers that has caused them to be in financial trouble, it's
the lack of amber turn signals. Very astute observation by you.
--
New service to compete with paypal
Get $25 pre-registration bonus by
following this link
www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u