Talilight Safety?

Maybe it's just me, but I have noticed a growing trend in how taillights are being designed, specifically turn signals. It seems nowdays, more and more car companies are using red turn signals in the rear. Even worse some companies, like Ford and GM, still have the turn signal and stoplight working off the same bulb. This trend even trickled down to the imports, such as Honda, who now uses red turn signals in most of their new cars. Maybe it's just me, but IMO, the yellow (amber) turn signals are MUCH safer. Not only are they brighter, they stand out from the line of red tail lights. I regularly drive in city traffic, and I must say, that I can spot an amber turn signal a few tenths of a second faster than a red one - a few tenths of a second that could make all the difference.

There's a obvious reason why car companies like red lights, cost and styling. When a car only has 2 bulbs on each side (1 tail/stop, 1 backup - not counting top mount brake light) it saves money, and allows for a less cluttered design. It just irritates me a bit to see car manufacturers not updating, (and in some cases regressing) in their technology. In fact, except for North America & Canada, most countries in the world require all cars to have amber rear turn signals. Now im not trying to bash the US and claim that we're behind, but amber signal requirements do bring up a valid point - they're safer and more effective. Now what we have to do in this country is to stop treating these safety devices like toys.

Anyways, just my :2cents:

They are using red signals in the rear because with the standard for a center high mounted brake light, it become vastly more obvious which is a steady brake light, and which is a blinking signal. I've never had a problem telling when a light is blinking in front of me, indicating a turn signal, and steady, indicating braking.

Some cars I like the amber lights on, some I don't.

BTW, I remember whan Hondas had all red lights back in the '60s and early '70s..