[HN Gopher] Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn s...
___________________________________________________________________
Congratulations, Mini, you made the stupidest turn signals ever
Author : colinprince
Score : 671 points
Date : 2021-09-26 14:47 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jalopnik.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (jalopnik.com)
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Wow what a circular response - people who buy the Mini have no
| problem with its stupid features. Of course they don't - they
| bought the car so you know that already.
|
| That Mini rep response sounds like a lame rationalization.
| gkop wrote:
| Yep plus
|
| > there should be no trouble at all for a driver to understand,
| _when seeing the full rear of the car_ , which direction is
| being indicated.
|
| How do they propose to guarantee that the full rear of the car
| will be visible in all cases when the turn indicator is
| observed?
| klyrs wrote:
| Like pulling out of a parallel parking spot? Don't worry,
| nobody uses their indicators for that anyway...
| mlang23 wrote:
| I am not a car person, so I wouldnt know, nor have any intuition
| for it. But are "taillight themed bars" really a think? This
| sounds so weird.
| nimbius wrote:
| Mini has always struck me as a gimmick on wheels. In the US The
| cars sole purpose is an ego stroke for insufferable
| anglophiles... the kind who refer to every bar as a pub and flog
| the premier league like some sort of religious talisman.
|
| Its built in mexico, owned by BMW and speaking as someone who
| makes a living working on cars, is a piece of garbage in ways
| only BMW could aspire to achieve. Agonizing turbo locations, self
| destructing interference engines that exist to skirt the warranty
| claims department, and a transmission configuration that makes a
| lada look positively formula one by comparison.
|
| And now finally the Union jack themes come to bite them in the
| ass. Save your money and buy a Mazda CX crossover.
| malyk wrote:
| So the left turn signal is an arrow pointing to the right? And
| the right turn signal is an arrow pointing to the left?
|
| How does that pass, well, anything at all without someone saying
| "that might not be the best idea"!
| chrisseaton wrote:
| How could anyone be confused? They're on the side the car is
| turning - like every other turn signal you've seen in your
| entire life.
| atty wrote:
| If I were behind that I would not be perpetually confused.
| But I'd sure as hell have a split second of confusion, and
| generally we try to avoid those sorts of situations when
| driving.
| chriswait wrote:
| The article talks about this: "Now, I think the vast majority
| of drivers will understand what's going on and treat them as
| normal blinking turn indicators, but these indicators hurt
| your brain, at least a little bit"
|
| I think you are interpreting "confused" as "I can't tell
| which way the car is turning", while everyone else is talking
| about "This UX forces me to use my brain when I shouldn't
| have to".
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I guess I don't know what the author thinks they mean about
| 'hurt your brain'.
| edoceo wrote:
| Cognitive Dissonance.
| fortyseven wrote:
| Sure, go ahead and play stupid.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| To be honest I think the author is playing stupid
| pretending to be confused by a simple indicator light.
| mthoms wrote:
| Safety features should not be fun or cheeky. They should
| be intuitive and obvious.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect
| lost-found wrote:
| They specifically address this in the article. You're
| being willfully obtuse.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I think the author is more accurately simulating how his
| brain will feel when he's flying down the road, tracking
| the trajectories of the very fast metal boxes surrounding
| him, and suddenly encounters a non-standard ambiguous
| signal. Turn signal decoding should be instant and
| unconscious, and this mini signal disrupts that. If
| anything I think he's understating the risks.
| torstenvl wrote:
| Dishonesty is unbecoming.
| chriswait wrote:
| Yeah, I don't think they're literally meaning "hurt"
| here.
|
| Maybe a better analogy is where you're having a
| conversation with someone, and they throw in a double-
| negative. It's not like you're literally unable to work
| it out, but you need to engage with it consciously for a
| second. In a high-stakes conversation, that's just
| something that's good to avoid.
|
| A memorable example of this for me (if a bit of a
| tangent) was when Felix Baumgartner was doing his mega
| parachute jump, and they kept screwing up the comms for
| which direction the wind was coming from / going in:
| https://youtu.be/rNhmYaWiPEk?t=4200 (by convention,
| people talk about wind in terms of the direction they
| come _from_ ).
|
| I think the whole thing here is that driving involves a
| lot of modelling other drivers and their intentions, so
| our tolerance for bad UX that requires conscious thought
| should be really low.
| icedchai wrote:
| The phrase is very common in the US. You've never heard
| someone say "this code hurts my brain" ?
| roamerz wrote:
| I had to just laugh at your comment. It's either brilliant
| sarcasm or you just might be the guy that designed this.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| No not joking. They seem to follow the same predictable
| pattern as every other turn signal I've ever seen. Not sure
| what the fuss is.
| mthoms wrote:
| Now imagine you've never seen this before and you're
| driving in fog so thick that you can only see the light
| and _not_ the car.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Okay, maybe your brain is wired differently, just like
| the brain of the designer who created the lights.
|
| The position of the light on the car is a signal for my
| brain, but it takes some processing. If it's on the right
| side of the vehicle, my brain evaluates that to "right"
| and vice versa, but maybe it's a short car, like a Smart
| ForTwo or a Fiat 500, and I'm looking at its side, so the
| right-hand-side indicator is left from the "center of
| perceived mass", but in that case there should be another
| smaller light somewhere around the side-view mirror and
| hmmm, yeah, it's turning right. It just takes a tiny bit
| of processing power and a tiny bit of time.
|
| But an arrow, boy, I've been looking at arrows all my
| life. They've been telling me where to go at the train
| station, which way to turn on Google Maps and sometimes
| even literally which way to turn the steering wheel, on
| the outside of a sharp turn. An arrow requires no
| additional processing and is a strong, unmistakable
| signal.
|
| So what my brain sees on that Mini flashing its left
| indicator is something like "Car turning left, btw
| RIGHT".
| gokhan wrote:
| There's this trick question among children here. One
| makes the other repeat "white" ten times and immediately
| asks "What do cows drink?". The answer is almost always
| milk. It might even be working without repeating white
| part [1].
|
| You should have encountered many situations like this
| before, simple tasks creating cognitive load, how can't
| you know what the fuss is?
|
| [1] https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/what-do-
| cows-drink-...
| _dain_ wrote:
| but cows do drink milk ..
| cortesoft wrote:
| They do not follow the pattern if every other turn signal
| you have seen, because no other turn signal has an arrow
| pointing in the opposite direction of what it is
| indicating.
|
| Can you really not understand how that might cause a
| moment of confusion? You see a turn signal like normal,
| but then you notice it is pointing in a different
| direction... you don't think that might make some people
| pause for an instant and think?
|
| We are used to both turn signals and arrows being used to
| indicate direction... when they contradict each other, it
| is going to get past our automatic brain and make us
| think, which is bad when driving.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| I agree! In fact, I'm sick of red meaning stop, and green
| meaning go for traffic lights. After all, this is
| redundant information, we all know the arrangement. Why
| not swap up the colors for fun?
|
| This idea is only slightly worse than using wrong-
| pointing arrows for turn signals.
| Scarbutt wrote:
| I bet you are fun at parties.
| indentit wrote:
| And if one tail light isn't working in the dark, or the view
| of one is obstructed, what then?
| exporectomy wrote:
| Then what does this flashing arrow on the back of the vehicle
| mean?
|
| https://trafficsafetyzone.com/product/magnetic-led-
| direction...
|
| or this which looks a lot more like the Mini indicator:
|
| https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/2304413-red-
| light...
|
| Of course you can work it out with context and time, but are
| you sure your reflexes can work it all out quickly?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The Mini indicators don't look like arrows to me. They look
| just like basic indicators. I don't know what else to say?
|
| To be honest I think people are massively exaggerating how
| confusing they are for fun Internet outrage points. People
| calling for people to be sacked and things. Crazy.
| input_sh wrote:
| They're shaped like arrows pointing the opposite way, and
| we've had arrows for directions long before we had turn
| signals. If I ever see one of those in the street you bet
| I'll be confused for a split second. Being confused even for
| a split second is not a great thing when you're driving a two
| ton vehicle.
| young_unixer wrote:
| Please, do the stroop test and tell me you don't get confused
| by the incongruence.
| shreddit wrote:
| Let's talk again in the dark and something like 100m away
| jobigoud wrote:
| > like every other turn signal you've seen in your entire
| life.
|
| You don't know a priori that they work like other turn
| signals.
|
| You are presented with a new paradigm. Blinking side AND
| arrow direction. All bets are off. You now have to decide
| whether they indeed kept them on the right side or if they
| innovated and it's the arrows that are right.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > All bets are off.
|
| It's a turn signal on a car. It's not the enigma you're
| making it out to be. Thousands of these on the road for
| like a decade. Absolutely nobody is actually confused.
|
| A whole lot of people pretending to be mystified for some
| reason in this thread.
| _dain_ wrote:
| Do you honestly not comprehend the difference between
| being able to think about this for as long as you want
| and post comments on HackerNews, and having to make a
| split-second decision while driving at high speed?
| pests wrote:
| Just looking at the video in the tweet had me slightly
| confused. Arrows are powerful.
|
| It's like those puzzles or quiz's or whatnot that have the
| word "red" written in a blue font. Of course everyone can
| read the word, but in split second decisions the brain is
| going to grab whichever details it can.
| sbarre wrote:
| What if you're in foggy weather or bad rain and can't
| properly see the car in front of you, and you see a "arrow
| pointing left" flashing ahead... Not only is the arrow
| pointing in the wrong direction but you may incorrectly
| assume that the vehicle itself is to the right of that light
| when it is in fact to the left of it.
|
| Signals are most important in reduced vision conditions, and
| this reduces the reliability of those signals.
|
| Surely you understand this.
| macintux wrote:
| Especially given how many cars have faulty lights, so that
| might literally be the only indicator you can see of a
| vehicle in front of you.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I've worked in places where, if it's a senior VIP's idea,
| _nobody_ questions it. You just do it. Doesn 't matter if it's
| good, clever, high-value, safe, ethical, legal, or even
| possible. You just do it and don't ask why, or so much as hint
| that it's a terrible idea. Everyone just whistles and pretends
| it's great. I would hope that this wouldn't be the case in a
| car company, where safety needs to be a huge part of the whole
| process, but I've never worked there.
| danuker wrote:
| In Kaizen, if you don't find a problem, there is a problem.
| Might as well point out the problem.
|
| https://harishsnotebook.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/what-do-
| you...
| GhostVII wrote:
| They probably designed the car with Europe regulations in mind
| first, and then rather than try and design an entirely new
| brake light for the US just took the lazy/cheap way and lit up
| the other two available light bars.
| siva7 wrote:
| I wonder what kind of company culture exists at mini that no
| one had the power to step und say that this might be not a
| good idea
| IshKebab wrote:
| Is that really the case? In the UK at least indicators have
| to be orange, so they are easy to distinguish from brake
| lights. I find it insane that there are cars with red
| indicators like this one. Definitely couldn't be sold in the
| UK.
| AnssiH wrote:
| The article writer believes EU spec indicators are just
| horizontal (amber) lines so they would not have the issue.
|
| But presumably those would be too small for US rules so
| they lit additional segments, making the arrow, which is
| what the parent commenter referred to.
| u801e wrote:
| > But presumably those would be too small for US rules so
| they lit additional segments
|
| I've seen various Tesla models that just use a single
| horizontal line of LEDs (either amber or red on color)
| for their turn signals in the US.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Reminds me of official aviation-speak where "takeoff power" means
| firewall the throttle, for things like taking off. Until one day
| the copilot heard it as "take off power" and chopped the
| throttle, resulting in a crash. Military aviation had to learn
| that the hard way, too.
|
| These sort of mistakes seem stupidly obvious, but it's only when
| you see it. For example, on Windows 95 the "turn off" button was
| infamously labeled "Start".
| seandoe wrote:
| Are there no regulatory agencies that review new car designs?
| Like if a car is to be imported into country X, besides meeting
| all established regulations (emissions, safety, etc), there isn't
| anybody who gives it even a once over? This will undoubtedly
| cause an accident at some point. It'd be interesting to know how
| a design like this made it from whoever's idea all the way to
| production.
| mattbee wrote:
| The headline & picture made me laugh because I've seen these for
| years in the UK and never seen them as arrows. Actually looking
| at these lights as sold in the UK, they have a vertical bar on
| the inside, so it's not quite as "arrowy" - e.g.
| https://cdn.bmwblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/P90289429...
|
| I'm not sure what the motivation is for the redesign, it does
| look less Union Jack-like.
| MattRix wrote:
| I'm on mobile so I don't have ads blocked and Jalopnik is just
| awful to read. There's a giant ad every sentence or two. The
| modern web is a disaster.
| busymom0 wrote:
| I find reader mode helps in such articles. I have set my hacker
| news app to automatically use reader mode when available.
| pokstad wrote:
| It's free content. If it was in a plain text file with no ads
| Jalopnik wouldn't get paid.
| travoc wrote:
| Install AdGuard on your mobile device and the web becomes
| usable again.
| allenu wrote:
| I laughed out loud as soon as I saw the gif of the turn signal.
| This is an unintentional Stroop test in a place where you need to
| have absolute clarity.
| gcanyon wrote:
| There are so many use cases where this could cause confusion, and
| actually risk an accident. I thought when I read the headline
| that I had a reasonable idea how bad it would be, but it was so
| much worse.
| adolph wrote:
| The Mini turn signals are close but not quite as annoying as GM's
| "reverse" light on when vehicle unlocked.
|
| https://www.motor1.com/news/233379/gm-reverse-lights-annoyin...
| anotherboffin wrote:
| Slightly off topic, but FWIW the website is also a mess. You're
| allowed to read one sentence at a time as they're interspersed
| with ads, autoplaying videos and sign-up forms.
| u801e wrote:
| There are even worse implementations. In the US and Canada where
| red color rear turn signals are permitted as a cost saving
| measure, you will see implementations where you have to discern a
| blinking red light surrounded by an illuminated solid red light
| (when the brakes are applied).
| snthd wrote:
| Presumably the original amber lights are too small to be legal.
| Changing the LED colour is the smallest possible localisation.
|
| https://www.acarplace.com/2018/01/index/
|
| >Stylists don't deserve all the blame. In America, the brake
| light and rear turn signal must each have a lit lens area of at
| least 50 cm2 (73/4 in2). The American regulation calls this lit
| lens area "EPLLA" for Effective Projected Luminous Lens Area.
| This minimum-size requirement doesn't exist outside America. It's
| not such a big deal on a large vehicle where there's plenty of
| space for a large rear lamp, but on smaller rear lamps space is
| at a premium. There often isn't room for two lamps of at least 50
| cm2, so that makes a design constraint.
|
| >American regs say rear turn signals can be implemented by
| flashing the brake light, so the automaker needs to have only one
| lamp of at least 50 cm2 per side. Problem solved; the red
| combination brake/tail/turn lamp is legal
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| There's plenty of room, the Mini is 56" high and 68" wide.
| There's space for two lights each smaller than a soda can.
|
| The stylists and sales targets have more weight than safety-
| minded regulators or consumers, so the stylists can veto any
| changes that add a color like yellow or increase the size of
| the lights.
| siva7 wrote:
| In Psychology there is Stroop Effect. Remember the funny game
| when asked to name the color of the word it takes longer and is
| more prone to errors when the color of the ink does not match the
| name of the color? I guess this design can only happen because no
| regulator thought that a car manufacturer could be THAT dumb.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect
| gryson wrote:
| The Stroop Effect is the first thing I thought as well. "Mixed
| signals" like this just increase cognitive load and lead to
| more errors.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| You're right! This is a brilliant example of the Stroop Effect.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > That's probably too far. I don't really think these are
| actually hurting anyone.
|
| It's a car. Any stupid thing one does in a car hurts people.
| fctorial wrote:
| This should be illegal because it's going to cause accidents.
| Someone behind one of these cars is going to get distracted and
| crash.
| dzonga wrote:
| someone sat down, designed those tail-lights. and got all the
| subordinates to nod, in agreement. then they later went to their
| husband / wife and little kids with a smug on their face like
| they did a good job.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Do you know this for a fact? Because it could've been some
| executive told the designer to make a Union Jack blinker. And
| the designer dutifully did their job, even though they thought
| it was stupid.
| mthoms wrote:
| Who's to say the parents comment isn't describing said
| executive?
| pfortuny wrote:
| sorry but honesty is a big _part_ of your duty.
| scrose wrote:
| This will suck primarily for cyclists and motorcyclists
| approaching intersections. Most of the time they won't be
| directly behind a vehicle and will instead be off to the left or
| right and may only see a single side before overtaking a driver.
| quantum_state wrote:
| God help the designers and engineers at Mini, Amen!
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Jalopnik articles are always so bloated, they would be better off
| as just a Twitter page.
| gtirloni wrote:
| Doesn't this have to pass a government inspect? How's it even
| allowed?
| kube-system wrote:
| Government regulations mostly state that it must have a certain
| brightness and area. It passes because it meets those
| requirements.
| snthd wrote:
| Is there a design advantage to flashing a single brake light as a
| turn signal?
|
| Conforming to the international norm of amber turn signals would
| seem to be an obvious win?
| bri3d wrote:
| In the US, there's a regulation mandating the size of the lit
| area for the turn signal exceed a certain surface area. The
| European style amber signal area on most standard-sized or
| small cars is unlikely to comply. This (and regulations around
| the amount of red reflector in taillights) is the reason why
| most Americanized cars get terrible taillights with reused
| brake lights.
| toast0 wrote:
| Flashing the brake light saves a wire or two, reduces the bulb
| count by two, and avoids another bulb housing.
|
| Plus it's allowed in the spec and makes your car look older and
| more dignified. (Remember when we had to blink our brakelights
| because times were tough? We're still tough!)
|
| Some pickup trucks are wired for either, and you can swap out
| the lenses and add a bulb to get separate signals.
| oblio wrote:
| > Flashing the brake light saves a wire or two, reduces the
| bulb count by two, and avoids another bulb housing.
|
| So? 20 cents?
| kube-system wrote:
| It saves $3 worth of parts for the manufacturer.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Apart from the US (where paper checks still circulate and I
| assume fax machines are everywhere) are there other places where
| _blinking the red tail light_ is an acceptable indicator signal?
| What's wrong with just mandating indicator ligts? Every car
| manufacturer can make them - because obviously they are required
| elsewhere - so why go through the trouble and cost of
| manufacturing a worse solution as well?
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I don't often say this: someone should be fired for this. That is
| a shockingly bad choice that might endanger your customers lives.
| sschueller wrote:
| Just like the capacitive touch turn signal buttons on the new
| Tesla yet for what ever reason that's OK...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| On my drawing board I've conceived an LED matrix sign to go in
| the back window of my car.
|
| That could do a good job of turn signals, warnings for
| tailgaters, etc. I think putting up a message like "I support my
| local police department" might lead me to getting stopped.
|
| One trouble I see is that the view out the back would be
| partially obscured, Probably the light strips would spaced such
| that 50% or so of light could get through, but if the strips were
| lit up either by themselves or something else contrast would be
| impaired. It would probably be OK with a rear-view camera but I
| wouldn't want to argue about that with the cops.
|
| So for now I'll stick with a single LED strip mounted on the side
| that can replace my car's image with a McLaren F1 if somebody
| looks at it at just the right time in the right way.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I don't care about the turn signals.
|
| The mechanical problems are another story.
|
| I have never met a satisfied Mini owner after 70k.
| cjbenedikt wrote:
| My humble take: it's actually not meant to be an arrow - although
| it does indeed look like one - but the part of the embedded Union
| Jack that lights up.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| I mean, that's not a humble take, that's what the article is
| about. That the use of the Union Jack has had the side effect
| of making the lights into arrows, but on the wrong side (when
| seen as arrows, which is a natural interpretation). Not that
| they were intended to be arrows.
| sporkland wrote:
| As a regular bike commuter, and a person that used to want to buy
| a mini. I've found mini drivers to be some of the most
| aggressive, most impatient on the road. I assume it's because
| they are acting out some Le mans fantasy to my detriment.
| titzer wrote:
| Just drive upside down.
| exabrial wrote:
| The turn signals on new Kias that are 11" off the ground on the
| lowest part of the bumper are ridiculously hard to spot and after
| fall below the line of vision.
| siva7 wrote:
| First time i seriously thought someone pretty high in the chain
| should get fired over a design
| petee wrote:
| I think the Ford/GM thing of using the brake lights also as the
| turn signal is far more dangerous -- when the brakes are on, a
| turn signal just turns the single light off. In traffic stopping
| quickly, and you can only see one light, you have a fraction of a
| second to determine if the car is stopping or changing lanes.
|
| I see this in traffic all the time, and nearly been hit by cars
| that look like they are braking but actually changing lanes. Why
| are separate light colors not mandated?
| u801e wrote:
| > Why are separate light colors not mandated?
|
| They are mandated in any country that uses UNECE regulations
| for vehicle lighting. In the US and Canada, red turn signals
| are allowed as a cost saving measure. That's why you can see
| high end luxury cars with LED tail lamp clusters that have red
| rear turn signals in the US.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| It would be fun to pull datasets of collision data based on this
| version of mini and earlier versions to see if there is a
| statistical increase in damage to cars while that are currently
| in a move that used a turn signal.
| SergeAx wrote:
| I beleive a term "stupid" is more suitable for drivers who may
| think that blinking on the right side of the car may indicate a
| left turn because of the LED pattern.
| amelius wrote:
| Good example of when form over function is a bad idea. This will
| end up in product design textbooks.
| mdavis6890 wrote:
| The main issue here is that, much like 4000w HID headlights, they
| only irritate others, not the owner/purchaser of the vehicle, who
| may not even be aware of what their rear turn indicators look
| like, or that there is anything wrong with them.
| macintux wrote:
| Or like the dashes that light at night even when your
| headlights aren't but your DRLs are, so you are completely
| unaware you have no taillights and it's very difficult to
| discover otherwise.
| rayiner wrote:
| How did those make it into production?!
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Nobody cared enough to say something.
|
| When that happens in the aircraft industry, there are
| consequences, but the car business is different, I guess.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Absolutely horrid design that is going to fucking kill people.
| Like, so bad that it deserves to in the next edition of DoET as
| an example of what not to do. Whoever worked on this should be
| demoted and the senior person who signed off on it should be
| fired
|
| Also, Mini's flippant and patronizing cluelessness in response to
| the OP's concern is appalling. This is 2021 are companies really
| still thinking "no one else has complained" is a valid defense
| when it comes to design?
| codeduck wrote:
| How hard is it to go: oh, the left hand side indicator is
| blinking. It's possible they might turn left.
|
| It's common bloody sense.
|
| This is honestly manufactured outrage.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| > oh, the left hand side indicator is blinking. It's possible
| they might turn left.
|
| Not hard at all, which is why this isn't a problem if you have
| enough time to think all that.
|
| This is a problem in the tiny minority of cases where it's
| night, it's raining, you're either going too fast or maybe
| blinded by someone's high beams and all your brain can process
| in a split second is BLINKING ARROW LEFT.
| oceliker wrote:
| If my visibility is impaired for the reasons you mention,
| then I'm sure I'm not seeing the "arrow" either. Blinking
| light comes before shape recognition in the visual hierarchy.
| codeduck wrote:
| Exactly. The shape is likely only just resolvable at a safe
| highway following distance, whereas you'll see it flashing
| from further away. Arguably the visual design might even
| trigger the "something is wrong" reflex and make you pay
| attention.
| shotta wrote:
| What if it's dark outside.
|
| Is that a motorcycle? I can't tell. I guess that motorcycle is
| turning left.
| codeduck wrote:
| If you're following close enough that this is an issue then
| you are driving too close for the conditions.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| If it's dark, both rear red lights will be on. It could be
| motorcycles, if they are really close together but that
| sounds unlikely.
| codeduck wrote:
| Even in the event of failed lights, the clusters have
| reflective sections that will illuminate in response to
| your own lights.
| shotta wrote:
| What I failed to articulate (I can't get my brain to boot
| this morning) is that a decent amount of motorcycles use
| arrows as their turn indicators. When I see a blinking
| arrow at night, I assume it's a bike.
| [deleted]
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Just be careful, as you can see from this article it
| might not be the case. Better to be on the lookout and
| don't assume things :)
| siva7 wrote:
| It is hard to to go if you factor in basic human psychology.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| What if one tail light is slightly defective and you're in the
| dark. Driving is done with the subconscious and this
| potentially lethal in the wrong circumstance.
| codeduck wrote:
| If it is so dark that your headlights are not able to
| illuminate the car ahead's reflectors and numberplate
| adequately for you to see them, even if it has defective
| lights, and react in time, then you are traveling too fast
| for the conditions.
|
| The correct response to something weird or potentially
| hazardous ahead is to _slow down_ and try to determine what
| is going on.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| I am talking about a decision made at design time, not at
| run time.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| > then you are traveling too fast for the conditions
|
| Oh, yes, absolutely. But you've already made the mistake
| and there's nothing to be done anymore. We can either make
| you and everyone around you pay for your mistakes, or try
| to make the whole environment as forgiving and as safe as
| possible. Just like in aviation, navy, software
| development, or most other industries.
| CountSessine wrote:
| This reminds me of the colour word test, where you have to say
| what colour a word is but the word itself is the name of a
| different colour. The cognitive conflict behind this is called
| the Stroop Effect and I wonder if this isn't being inflicted on
| drivers behind these minis.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect
| brunoborges wrote:
| Why can't the US simply require auto makers to use a damn yellow
| light for turn signals? This is common in almost every country.
| Yet in the US (and Canada, btw), we get the stupid Red color for
| break and turn signals.
|
| Such annoyance.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Was I the only one who googled whether taillight-themed
| nightclubs are a thing?
| daneel_w wrote:
| How on earth could did this pass QA...
| lttlrck wrote:
| Personally I find the Audi-style sequential lightshow signals far
| more stupid - and more distracting.
|
| These look odd in a static image where the reader has been primed
| by the title, but in real life they are flashing lights on the
| corner of the car. The animated GIF in the article isn't
| confusing is it?
| christophilus wrote:
| It definitely made me double-take. At night, I could see it
| being a real issue. But I agree about the dumb Audi signals.
| masklinn wrote:
| > The animated GIF in the article isn't confusing is it?
|
| I would say that it, in fact, is: once you see the arrow
| pointing the wrong way around it becomes difficult to "unsee"
| it.
|
| I actually missed the issue in the video, the gif and text made
| the arrow "pop out", and now I can't unsee the clearly right-
| pointing arrow blinking at me, from a car which is certainly
| trying to turn left.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| It's cute if it's just mini who does such things (union jack
| taillights), but it gets tiresome when _every single_ marque
| feels the need to splatter design elements all over the place in
| the name of product differentiation. Even the super expensive
| ones. Like anyone cares less.
| omarqureshi wrote:
| Since the mini is a BMW and BMW drivers are notorious for never
| using turn signals, this should not be an issue, right?
| Bud wrote:
| The MINI is actually not a BMW, although it is true that it is
| made by BMW. Nor are MINI drivers really very much like BMW
| drivers, in fact I'd say that overall as a population, they are
| quite different.
|
| (I had a MINI from 2002-2020. Put about 300k miles on it.)
| flyingfences wrote:
| MY2013+ Minis are built on the BMW ULK1 platform.
| kmonsen wrote:
| That's the BMW X1 and x2 right? I feel the "correct" answer
| is that the X1/2 is actually minis not a proper BMW since
| they are built on the "mini" platform and are front wheel
| driven.
| flyingfences wrote:
| UKL is 1er, 2er, X1, X2, and a few Minis.
| speedgoose wrote:
| The electric Mini (Mini Cooper SE) is very much a worse but
| cheaper BMW i3 too.
| icedchai wrote:
| The Mini and BMW dealers near me are, indeed, separate. They
| are right next door to each other, and appear to share
| employees and a repair facility. Strange isn't it?
| estaseuropano wrote:
| Off topic, but NoScript blocks around 19 JS from different
| (tracking) sources on this jalopnik article. I will never visit
| this site again.
| gizdan wrote:
| Speaking of terrible turn signals, Technology Connections on
| YouTube did a very informative (though a bit ranting) video on
| them in the US. Worth a watch and really interesting.
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=O1lZ9n2bxWA
| Finnucane wrote:
| No one in Boston will ever see one, so whatevs.
| jameshart wrote:
| "The British are turning!"
| fimdomeio wrote:
| But what was the problem that Mini was trying to solve here? Did
| they thought that turn signals has they currently exist pose any
| kind of perception problem?
| caenorst wrote:
| To whomever is saying that "only position of the light matter" I
| invite you to try playing a car simulation game where all the
| arrows are inverted.
|
| Arrows are so well used (especially in the driving context) that
| the way we react to them is down to subconscious reflex. Imagine
| that the light is replaced by and neon written ("RIGHT" on the
| left side, and "LEFT" on the right side)
|
| This is stupid and just plain dangerous.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I just checked our new 2022 Mini SE EV, and fortunately, it
| doesn't have this design. The turn signal is more like a T
| rotated 90 degrees with the vertical bar towards the inside of
| the car.
|
| But I do wish it had amber turn signals, I don't know why the USA
| doesn't make that the standard since it removes all ambiguity
| with the brake light.
| oblio wrote:
| My guess? Inertia, cheapness and laziness.
|
| Inertia = it's always been this way.
|
| Cheapness = it would cost manufacturers a few cents more to
| retool/find new suppliers.
|
| Laziness = it (kinda) works, why touch it?
|
| This might be the Holy Trinity of Mediocrity, it's everywhere.
| pfortuny wrote:
| But you know, they look so "British"!
|
| That is a true mental clusterfuck.
| jowsie wrote:
| The really stupid thing is we have these exact same design of
| lights on the UK delivered Mini's, however it's just the center
| horizontal bar that flashes orange.
| kube-system wrote:
| As I understand, US regulations have stricter requirements on
| the required light surface area. Presumably this design
| decision was an attempt to meet those requirements.
|
| Audi models in the US also light their taillights in addition
| to the scrolling bar they have in the EU.
| input_sh wrote:
| But like they wouldn't be any less British if they pointed the
| other way.
| masklinn wrote:
| It would not match the Union Jack pattern.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Union Jack with COUNTRYMAN printed inbetween it's two
| halves isn't Union Jack either.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I don't even like it when they blink a light that should be
| permanently on instead of a real indicator.
|
| This is another level of dumb.
| rconti wrote:
| I'm a taillight enthusiast, but, I must say, it never even
| occurred to me that these look like an arrow, even after watching
| the gif.
|
| It's much less awful than the Mini Clubman, which, like so many
| new vehicles, have decided to install brake lights and signals IN
| THE BUMPER. My understanding is there's an EU (?) regulation that
| taillights must be visible when the trunk/hatch is open; eg, for
| roadside emergencies where you are broken down but are getting
| things out of the back, your lights must still be visible.
|
| Manufacturers have designed around this by having taillights that
| go up with the hatch, but still have brake/signal/various lights
| way down in the bumper. So you'll be driving behind a vehicle,
| seeing its normal taillights lit up with the headlights, but when
| they go to brake or signal, segments 2 feet lower come on. The
| visibility of this 'solution' is far worse than using lights up
| high. Yes, we have the center-mounted high stop light, but this
| is a step in the wrong direction, and makes turn signals less
| visible than ever.
|
| Also, my standard rant, ban red turn signals. They should always
| and forever be amber, which gets rid of a ton of confusion due to
| pulsing brake lights.
| masklinn wrote:
| > It's much less awful than the Mini Clubman, which, like so
| many new vehicles, have decided to install brake lights and
| signals IN THE BUMPER. My understanding is there's an EU (?)
| regulation that taillights must be visible when the trunk/hatch
| is open; eg, for roadside emergencies where you are broken down
| but are getting things out of the back, your lights must still
| be visible.
|
| There's a US reg on the subject: lamps on non-fixed parts of
| vehicles are considered auxiliary, so any of them must be
| duplicated on a fixed part of the vehicle.
|
| I don't know about EU regs on the subject, I can't remember
| seeing lights on the bumper aside from rear fogs.
|
| edit: I think it's allowed in the EU as long as the lights are
| visible as expected, and interestingly _brake lights are not
| covered_ , however the bumper workaround is also permitted, per
| Regulation No 48 SS 5.18 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...)
|
| 5.18. Rear position lamps, rear direction-indicators and rear
| retro-reflectors, triangular as well as non-triangular, may be
| installed on movable components only:
|
| 5.18.1. If at all fixed positions of the movable components the
| lamps on the movable components meet all the position,
| geometric visibility and photometric requirements for those
| lamps.
|
| 5.18.2. In the case where the functions referred to in
| paragraph 5.18 are obtained by an assembly of two lamps marked
| 'D' (see paragraph 2.16.1), only one of the lamps needs to meet
| the position, geometric visibility and photometric requirements
| for those lamps at all fixed positions of the movable
| components; or
|
| 5.18.3. Where additional lamps for the above functions are
| fitted and are activated, when the movable component is in any
| fixed open position, provided that these additional lamps
| satisfy all the position, geometric visibility and photometric
| requirements applicable to the lamps installed on the movable
| component.
|
| 5.18.4. In the case where the functions referred to in
| paragraph 5.18 are obtained by an interdependent lamp system
| either of the following conditions shall apply:
|
| (a) should the complete interdependent lamp system be mounted
| on the moving component(s), the requirements of paragraph
| 5.18.1 shall be satisfied. However, additional lamps for the
| above functions may be activated, when the movable component is
| in any fixed open position, provided that these additional
| lamps satisfy all the position, geometric visibility and
| photometric requirements applicable to the lamps installed on
| the movable component; or
|
| (b) should the interdependent lamp system be partly mounted on
| the fixed component and partly mounted on a movable component,
| the interdependent lamp(s) specified by the Applicant during
| the device approval procedure shall meet all the position,
| outwards geometric visibility and photometric requirements for
| those lamps, at all fixed positions of the movable
| component(s). The inwards geometric visibility requirement(s)
| is(are) deemed to be satisfied if this(these) interdependent
| lamp(s) still conform(s) to the photometric values prescribed
| in the field of light distribution for the approval of the
| device, at all fixed positions of the movable component(s).
| asveikau wrote:
| > Also, my standard rant, ban red turn signals. They should
| always and forever be amber,
|
| I seem to recall reading amber turn signals are required the EU
| but not US.
| masklinn wrote:
| > I seem to recall reading amber turn signals are required
| the EU but not US.
|
| Yes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1lZ9n2bxWA).
|
| The US allows not only red turn signals, but implementing
| turn signals by flashing brake lights.
| ycombinete wrote:
| What goes into being a tail light enthusiast? I can't wrap my
| head around this concept. He used the term Blinkie in the
| article but I thought it was a joke. Are you a blinkie?
| masklinn wrote:
| > What goes into being a tail light enthusiast?
|
| Watching the Technology Connections video on the subject is
| probably a good start.
| rconti wrote:
| I have strong opinions on their function, and have spent not-
| insignificant money to buy/install/modify various 'correct'
| functionality, eg, buying lamps and switches from Europe and
| modifying wiring to make the 'correct' functions work (amber
| turn signals, rear fog lights).
|
| I'm pretty sure Blinkie is facetious.
| mkhpalm wrote:
| My wife cares very little about cars but was pointed these tail
| lights out to me just yesterday. She said something like "those
| are stupid, why would somebody buy tail lights like that?"
| thinking they were aftermarket.
| jerzyt wrote:
| Double down on stupidity. Nope, we're not gonna fix it. We'll
| insist that we're right and you're an idiot. I hope that a big
| consumer country, like US, bans this idiocy.
| beardyw wrote:
| > Mini has chosen the Union Jack lights to highlight Mini's
| British heritage
|
| Mmm .. designed by an American, built by BMW, much much bigger, I
| don't think there is any of the original Mini left. I see an
| original on the road now and again, and they are really tiny. A
| new Mini could eat one for breakfast.
| stevecat wrote:
| I drove a friend's (new) Mini recently and it was somehow
| larger than my Polo but also had less room on the inside.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Another example of Brexit Syndrome - put union jacks everywhere
| while saying/doing things that make everyone else in the world
| wonder if you've lost your mind.
|
| I _wish_ that was just a joke.
| rawling wrote:
| Minis have had this branding for a long time.
| cf100clunk wrote:
| MINI: "Motorist In Navigational Illogic."
| tiernano wrote:
| I always liked the look of the new mini, and the electric one
| looks interesting, but then i seen the tail lights... Yea,
| British Heritage, whatever... IM IRISH... feck off... at least
| give the option of proper ones... BMW also own Rolls Royce...
| they dont do stupid things like this with them...
| globular-toast wrote:
| I've been noticing a steady regression in the effectiveness of
| signals on cars which seems to be caused by a pursuit of
| aesthetic quality over function. The lights used to be designed
| such that they were large illuminated surfaces (using a Fresnel
| lens). Now they are increasingly composed of thin lines which
| just don't work as well. They also seem to be highly directional.
| The other day I could tell a car was about to turn not because I
| could see the indicator flashing but because I could see that one
| of the daytime running lights was off, and I happen to know that
| happens when indicators are on. They were completely useless.
|
| The brightness of the lights is getting ridiculous too. Some
| brake lights are blinding which is awful if you're sitting behind
| someone who doesn't know how to use the handbrake. Half the cars
| on the road seem like they are constantly using high beam lights
| on the front now. I've even flashed oncoming cars before, only to
| be flashed back as they weren't even using high beams. It's
| making driving at night really unbearable.
| pomian wrote:
| Looking at the images from article It's obvious. They put the
| led's, into the lenses, on the wrong side. Someone had a great
| idea, with the arrows. But by the time it got into production,
| the insides were reversed. Maybe a drawing was mirror imaged,
| maybe the layout at the factory was upside down? D6one simple
| little thing.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| The article's text goes on to explain that this is because
| taken together the tail lights look like a Union Jack.
| davewritescode wrote:
| I'd agree with you but they've had union jacks in the
| headlights forever in this exact configuration. The only
| difference this time is they've tweaked what parts of the Union
| Jack is lit which makes it look more like an arrow.
|
| It's not a good headlight design but it's certainly not the
| worst either. There's a zillion examples of really shitty tail
| light design on American cars in particular.
|
| This is a pretty clickbait article and I usually like Jalopnik.
| [deleted]
| sklargh wrote:
| Similar situation...the U.S. fire fighting community starting
| using European-style reflective chevrons in the 2005-2010 period.
| U.S. apparatus spec is governed by something called NFPA 1901 but
| is highly decentralized and people were mounting them upside down
| even though they were conforming to the (nascent) standard for
| rear reflective surface area. The "V" shape of upside down
| chevrons can pull people TOWARDS a vehicle vs. direct them away
| from it. Mostly fixed now but a hot mess.
|
| Incorrect:
| https://ambulancevisibilityblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/...
|
| Correct: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-bright-neon-yellow-
| and-red...
|
| Just why?: https://svigraphics.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/03/Curbside-...
|
| tl;dr you can meet a safety standard and make things worse at the
| same time...
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Gotta love the warning KEEP BACK 343 FEET in the "correct"
| photo. Where in the world did they get 343 feet? That doesn't
| correspond to a round number in meters, an integer fraction of
| a mile, or anything else.
| LegitShady wrote:
| >The "V" shape of upside down chevrons can pull people TOWARDS
| a vehicle vs. direct them away from it.
|
| Is there any actual evidence of this? It seems roughly the same
| in terms of effect and attention getting.
| bdamm wrote:
| Phenomenal example of terrible industrial design. Now can anyone
| shed light on how this miserable design choice made it all the
| way to production?
|
| Mini has a history of this, also interesting is why people don't
| just stop buying these cars entirely.
| argomo wrote:
| > there should be no trouble at all for a driver to understand,
| when seeing the full rear of the car, which direction is being
| indicated.
|
| This response from Mini presumes drivers have the luxury of using
| "system 2" logical/analytical reasoning in a hectic realtime
| environment where they must most rely on "system 1" intuitive
| reasoning.
|
| There needs to be a name for this type design fallacy, because
| it's not the first time I've seen it.
| Veen wrote:
| The article's writer agrees with Mini. After several hundred
| words of mockery they conclude with: "I don't actually think
| the design is going to really confuse people...I don't really
| think these are actually hurting anyone."
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| >> when seeing the full rear of the car,
|
| I suppose the Mini designers have never driven in fog, poor
| lighting, storms, or at night? (When you might not see the full
| rear of the car)
|
| Imagine if you can only see the car's taillights and you see a
| blinking arrow move the opposite way it points. What would you
| think you saw?
|
| Or better yet, if one of the taillights is out, what would a
| driver behind the Mini think?
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Imagine if you can only see the car's taillights and you
| see a blinking arrow move the opposite way it points. What
| would you think you saw?
|
| If conditions were that bad and you saw a 'normal' indicator
| flash it would be a 50/50 guess which way it was going.
| That's better I suppose but hardly good.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| Now it's a 0/0 guess because you wrongly guess the arrow to
| point in the direction.
| frutiger wrote:
| > I suppose the Mini designers have never driven in fog, poor
| lighting, storms, or at night? (When you might not see the
| full rear of the car)
|
| The full rear of the car is still illuminated.
| frutiger wrote:
| The comment above is clearly controversial, I can't think
| of driving at night behind a car and not seeing both rear
| lights, and usually illuminated license plate and
| illumination coming from the rear window pane. Overall that
| gives me a full sense of the width of the car.
|
| The indicator light would be relatively to the left/right
| of the car, and typically would look like a single bulb due
| to distance and diffraction.
| thesuperbigfrog wrote:
| >> I can't think of driving at night behind a car and not
| seeing both rear lights, and usually illuminated license
| plate and illumination coming from the rear window pane.
|
| Have you ever driven in a snowstorm at night? (I am not
| being facetious, there are terrible snowstorms in the
| winter where I live due to lake-effect snow. Your mileage
| may vary depending on where you live.)
|
| Visibility is terrible in a nighttime snowstorm.
|
| Reflective surfaces are covered with snow.
|
| Lights can be partially or completely covered so that
| only a faint glow is visible.
|
| Anything that leads to confusion, such as a backward-
| pointing arrow turn signal light, could cause confusion
| that might lead to accidents. It might not confuse some
| drivers, but it only takes one confused driver to cause a
| road accident.
| frutiger wrote:
| > Have you ever driven in a snowstorm at night? (I am not
| being facetious, there are terrible snowstorms in the
| winter where I live due to lake-effect snow. Your mileage
| may vary depending on where you live.)
|
| Yes, once or twice. The general recommendation is NOT to
| drive during a snow storm. For those that must drive
| during a snow storm probably aren't driving these Minis.
|
| After all, most cars are not designed for every possible
| climate/severe weather scenario, I don't see why Minis
| should be held to a higher regard.
| yongjik wrote:
| Don't know the name of the fallacy, but there's a book aptly
| titled "Don't make me think", which talks about exactly this
| problem (for web design).
|
| Thing like turn signals shouldn't make you think - it must be
| automatically, instantly recognizable in every possible way.
| robocat wrote:
| Stroop effect "In psychology, the Stroop effect is the delay
| in reaction time between congruent and incongruent stimuli."
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28661817
| cf100clunk wrote:
| MINI: "Motoring Isn't Navigationally Intuitive."
| wenc wrote:
| Amusing to see this on HN. I saw one of these Minis on the road
| the other day for the first time and I admit I got confused for
| two seconds. But then again I'm used to Chicago drivers who
| signal left when they want to turn right and vice versa -- it's a
| thing here. When I realized that the Mini's turn signal was one
| half of the Union Jack I laughed because the design language
| reminded me of Austin Powers and perhaps it was meant to be
| intentionally funny and tacky by being jingoistic.
| durnygbur wrote:
| I've seen the European version on roads and the UK flag symbolics
| was obvious to me, haven't noticed it's an arrow as well... or
| perhaps the EU version has separate orange light panel for
| blinkers? Overall it's BMW, their trademark is to be show off and
| obnoxious.
| mitjam wrote:
| This is a clever and effective marketing measure: it raises
| attention, is memorable, people talk about it and it is a
| statement in line with the brand.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Clowning around like this shouldn't pay off, and if the
| marketing people think it does then we need to start increasing
| the punishments.
| mitjam wrote:
| Interestingly they had to work hard to make the design legal
| - because the Union Jack is asymmetrical which is not allowed
| for headlights. Not because the design is irritating.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4izR1worekc
| mthoms wrote:
| Mini's statement only highlights the absurdity (emphasis mine):
|
| >With regard to the turn indicator light pattern, there should be
| no trouble at all for a driver to understand, _when seeing the
| full rear of the car_ , which direction is being indicated
|
| So what about when you can only see half of the car? Like when
| it's changing lanes or pulling out of a parking spot? You know,
| like those times when a signal is MOST useful?
|
| Absolute idiocy.
| riazrizvi wrote:
| For a car branded for being small, that is now 3x heavier than
| the original sensational design I would not call this _absolute
| idiocy_. It is _consistent idiocy_.
| diarrhea wrote:
| > So what about when you can only see half of the car? Like
| when it's changing lanes or pulling out of a parking spot? You
| know, like those times when a signal is MOST useful?
|
| I don't understand how this is different with any other
| indicators.
| p49k wrote:
| With other indicators, if you lack context your brain is
| aware that you don't have enough info to deduce what's
| happening. With the MINI, they are providing additional
| (incorrect) context to reassure you of the (wrong) result.
| avemg wrote:
| The design is dumb but you're really stretching. I don't need
| to see the entire rear of the car to know which way the blinker
| is indicating. If I did then that would mean 99% of the cars on
| the road, which have no arrow at all, would suffer from this
| ambiguity.
| mthoms wrote:
| It's dark/foggy and you're cycling along a bank of parked
| cars. Up ahead you see a flashing arrow pointing right but
| can't make out the car itself.
|
| Is your first, gut instinct "up ahead there is a car pulling
| out to the _left_ from the parking lane "? Or is it... "WTF
| is that?"
| Retric wrote:
| The issue is if you only see 1/2 the car people are going to
| make the _wrong_ assumption rather than not knowing. You
| really don't want confusion when driving multi ton vehicles
| at highway speeds.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I could care less about this tiny problem.
|
| Is there a Mini owner satisfied with the mechanical part of
| their vechicle after 70k?
|
| They have such a low oil pan, you don't dare not check it.
|
| And every owner complains of things breaking down. A few days
| ago I was talking to a Mini owner.
|
| Age friend has to go to England for a year, and gave the car
| to this guy, with the caviet of taking care of maintance.
|
| The car had 50k--so it was new? First week a new Serpintine
| Belt.
|
| Then faulty sensors, and a list of problems he was listing
| off.
|
| They are cute though. I'm looking for a salvaged one to
| electrify.
| fsckboy wrote:
| then why did the Mini representative say "when you can see
| full rear of the car"?
| misnome wrote:
| This is what I _hate_ about the Audi striping indicators. Yes,
| they are actually useful when you see them when they are
| indicating.
|
| However, when they have the hazard lights on, they still
| stripe. So if it's still and you can't see the left indicator,
| it feels like a very strong statement that they are trying to
| move out.
| jbuhbjlnjbn wrote:
| Of course you are absolutely right, as is the author of the
| column.
|
| These unfortunate design decisions violate the most basic
| principles of design and safety, 'common sense' and 'function
| over form'.
| majormajor wrote:
| I don't have a problem with those. If you can only see half
| the car, hazards that blink normally still look like a turn
| signal blinking too. Yeah, the motion calls extra attention,
| but paying extra attention to a car with its hazards on seems
| fine.
| Schlaefer wrote:
| I'm still confused how they made it through regulation. Image
| you're a security-engineer and read "On average the indicator
| light runs at only 50% because we think it looks cool."
| Goz3rr wrote:
| Besides the fact that they're blinking lights so only on
| 50% of the time by design, consider the fact that
| regulations specify the minimum luminous output which these
| cars obviously pass. Add to that the fact that you're using
| modern high power LED lights and that the human eye
| perceives light in a logarithmic manner, it wouldn't
| surprise me if these indicators will be more noticeable on
| their "minimum" output than their old incandescent bulb
| counterparts.
| growt wrote:
| The average regular indicator is also only on for 50% of
| the time. You know the joke: works, doesn't work, works,
| doesn't work
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| They look terrible IMO.
| mccorrinall wrote:
| Do you mean this indicator? https://youtu.be/r9Fin7pyzDc
|
| Honestly, seems pretty good to me compared to the Mini one
| (which for some reason is RED instead of amber?! Plus an
| arrow in the opposite direction!)
|
| Is there no law which makes amber coloured turn lights
| mandatory on cars (in the US)?
| tyingq wrote:
| These types of laws aren't set at a Federal level in the
| US, but rather, state-by-state. As far as I know, they all
| allow red or amber. Most US cars have red turn signals.
| userbinator wrote:
| The red comes from the fact that combined red turn
| signal+brake lights with white reverse was the standard
| for a very long time, from at least the 1940s.
| bombcar wrote:
| Federal law can override and has done so in cases like
| seatbelts. But they've not bothered for turn signals.
|
| If it were to happen CA would likely be the first and
| then the rest of the country could follow.
| u801e wrote:
| Federal law (FMVSS 108) permits red rear turn signals,
| either combined with the brake lamp or a separate turn
| signal lamp. Interestingly enough, they require amber
| color front turn signals because the white ones were
| difficult to see when the headlamps were illuminated.
| It's too bad they didn't use the same reasoning for the
| rear turn signals compared to the tail lamps.
| u801e wrote:
| Any state vehicle law pertaining to vehicle lighting is
| been superceded by FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
| Standard) 108.
| lozenge wrote:
| No, no law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1lZ9n2bxWA
| cratermoon wrote:
| Or when it's dark. I'm imagining a cyclist or pedestrian seeing
| only the blinking light and maybe a vague outline of the
| vehicle at best, seeing the <- blinking and thinking, "that car
| is turning left". Then the cyclist wakes up in the hospital
| after being flattened by a right hook[1]
|
| 1 https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2019/04/08/whats-a-
| right-...
| philsnow wrote:
| or when the back of the car is covered in snow or a million
| other reasons
| noneeeed wrote:
| Even if I could see the full back of the car I think I'd still
| risk a brain-fart. It's like a driving Stroop Test (where words
| like "blue" are shown but you have to say what colour they are
| shown in, not what colour they say).
| thiht wrote:
| > So what about when you can only see half of the car? Like
| when it's changing lanes or pulling out of a parking spot? You
| know, like those times when a signal is MOST useful?
|
| You either see which side of the car you're seeing, or you
| don't and the shape of the light doesn't matter. When you
| drive, you don't interpret the light of the turn signal, you
| interpret where it is.
|
| For me that's one thing that looks stupid on paper but that
| doesn't matter in real life with all the context we have when
| driving.
| afavour wrote:
| What about when it's dark?
| forgetfulness wrote:
| And say, you're a cyclist, going somewhat fast but not
| having headlights that would illuminate the rear of the car
| as to make out the relation of these arrows and the
| vehicle.
| SkeuomorphicBee wrote:
| > When you drive, you don't interpret the light of the turn
| signal, you interpret where it is.
|
| That is not true, you only interpret "where it is" because
| there is no other information encoded in the light itself,
| when seeing a regular car with a plain signal you do
| interpret where it is. But in service cars (police car,
| ambulances, road maintenance trucks), large truck, or static
| light signaling, we frequently have special purpose lights
| with a meaning encoded in the light itself, and in those
| cases the position is irrelevant, the meaning is 100% in the
| icon used, so all drivers are already primed to interpret an
| arrow shaped light as an arrow. Now, those service vehicles
| don't have those special purpose lights in places were they
| could be ambiguously interpreted as a turn signal, so there
| is no problem there, but that Mini turn signal is quite
| unsettling, it sends two conflicting messages (position vs
| iconography), and that is BAD in traffic.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| Or at night, in the dark, unlit two-lane roads of most of
| Europe?
| bcraven wrote:
| As the article states, the euro-models light up the middle
| bar of the lamp. This appears to be US-centric issue due to
| the fact turn signals are not required to be amber.
| wirthjason wrote:
| At night both tail lamps are lit.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| If they're working, and if there isn't something
| obstructing their view, like another vehicle or fog.
|
| Generally it's best to design vehicle signaling with an
| assumption that situations are not ideal, just in case.
| giardini wrote:
| Result: night-time accidents, especially in fog. Drivers
| will see a single flashing taillight arrow and make
| incorrect assumptions. Very severe and fatal collisions
| and consequential lawsuits will ensue. Cooper will pay,
| pay, pay. They will issue recalls and beg for leniency.
| But there is no doubt they f*cked this design.
|
| If one of the two tail lights and/or a brake light(s)
| is/are out then the situation will only be worse.
|
| I'd short Cooper stock were I an investor. This will cost
| them a pretty penny.
|
| Gawd, I can't imagine what a self-driving car would see
| when it is following a Mini down a foggy British roadway.
| Perhaps someone could model it?
| u801e wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken, rear fog lamps are required by UNECE
| regulations and would mitigate this issue. Unfortunately,
| in the US rear fog lamps are not required.
| jen20 wrote:
| If it's on a British road, said self-driving car will see
| normal yellow indicators, since red is not a permissible
| colour. As mentioned in the article.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Yeah, I think the amber horizontal bar in the middle for
| EU cars is an acceptable design. Cutesy, but no risk to
| the health and safety of the driver and others.
|
| It's the US spec that seems incredibly poorly thought
| out.
| [deleted]
| JDeArte wrote:
| California DMV motor vehicle code, in part says
|
| 25251. (a) Flashing lights are permitted on vehicles as follows:
| (1) To indicate an intention to turn or move to the right or left
| upon a roadway, turn signal lamps and turn signal exterior pilot
| indicator lamps and side lamps permitted under Section 25106 may
| be flashed on the side of a vehicle toward which the turn or
| movement is to be made.
|
| If you feel that the mini is in violation by failing to do it's
| most basic of job of indicating left or right, file a complaint
| with the investigations division, and this state with the largest
| number of car registrations can fix it by forcing a recall or
| blocking registrations until it it fixed by the mfg
| https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv-complaints-ffinv-1/
| hexa22 wrote:
| From what I have seen of American cars, this one is completely
| compliant. The horrible part about this car is that the signals
| are red and that they are the same light as the rear/brake
| lights. Which is apparently extremely common in the US.
| spiderice wrote:
| Yeah that's how a lot of cars are here. It really isn't
| confusing at all, unlike putting any arrow that points the
| opposite direction that you're trying to indicate.
| SkeuomorphicBee wrote:
| How is this legal? In what country is this car sold? I don't
| think it would be considered road legal where I live.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| That is really stupid. But it is probably confined to the US
| where stop lights are used as turn indicators.
|
| It looks like a misguided attempt to remind people of the Union
| flag.
|
| Edit: Oops, didn't read all the article; that is exactly what
| they were doing.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| My wife thinks my anti-modern-mini rants are incredibly funny.
| But I think the car is a list of lazy mistranslations of a design
| classic. Thanks for adding another example to my list of mini
| shame.
| Gracana wrote:
| I remember seeing my friend's Isuzu Trooper 4x4 in a parking
| lot next to a "Mini" that dwarfed it. I don't hate minis, but
| that moment made me realize what a silly brand they are.
| WelcomeShorty wrote:
| Hmm, I would not be distracted by this. There are so many
| different indicators in Europe (we have laxer rule than the US on
| blinkers) that the "direction" or whatever does not phase me at
| all.
| woutr_be wrote:
| I have seen all kind of indicators while driving in Europe, and
| they all share the same basic thing; a flashing light
| indicating in which direction the car will be turning.
|
| Suddenly seeing a flashing arrow pointing the other way
| instantly confused me, and I had no idea which way the car
| would be turning. This is just plain stupid.
| spzb wrote:
| I saw a flashing indicator light not an arrow until it was
| pointed out to me.
| nemetroid wrote:
| The turn signals in this article would be illegal in the EU.
| dorkwood wrote:
| To me, this sends another signal. One that says "don't work at
| Mini".
|
| If something like this is able to make it all the way through
| design, production and testing -- with no one raising a red flag
| along the way -- what other less visible but equally bone-headed
| ideas are making it into their cars?
| H8crilA wrote:
| You have a point, but it's not that clear cut. Large
| corporations are quite non-uniform and decision making is
| sometimes random. For example, remember YouTube Red? A quite
| boneheaded decision, yet I'm told there are many many good
| areas to work in at Google.
| dafoex wrote:
| I think the problem lies, as usual, with america. These lamp
| clusters were designed in a European environment where we have
| brake lights and turn indicators. By the time the design was
| nearing production it was probably too late to cancel when they
| realised that some parts of this planet have the boneheaded
| idea that flashing the red stop light was a good idea. Mini
| therefore had three options: 1) Sell the global spec in the
| states, which they can't do because there will be at least one
| state who thinks its too foreign or "un american". 2) Don't
| sell in the states, which I guess they could do since this is a
| factory modification and not part of the standard spec, but now
| they have a lot of undesirable cars because you can no longer
| visually distinguish the up-specced car from the basic model.
| 3) Change the orange bulb for red and sell cars to the
| boneheaded (and dangerous) american standard of flashing the
| stop lights.
| breakingcups wrote:
| > By the time the design was nearing production it was
| probably too late to cancel when they realised that some
| parts of this planet have the boneheaded idea that flashing
| the red stop light was a good idea
|
| If only designing cars is what they did for a living..
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| > Mini has not heard any concerns from customers regarding the
| rear turn indicators
|
| I wouldn't expect them to: they cannot see their own turn signal
| lights while driving.
|
| If they happen to be behind another Mini, they already know about
| it and it may not throw them off-guard like others who aren't
| familiar with it.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| I do hope that all it takes is a few customers in a showroom
| asking the salesman "does it come without those stupid fucking
| indicators?"
| wolpoli wrote:
| People at a showroom might not be considered actual
| customers. We would need to get actual customer who have
| purchased the car to contact Mini, publically via Twitter, so
| they could no longer hide behind this statement.
| sircastor wrote:
| FWIW, the answer to that question is yes. We bought a Mini a
| few years back and the Union Jack indicators were an upgrade
| (not a cheap one as I recall)
| ThePadawan wrote:
| Cool!
|
| I was trying to find out if they blinked in the weird arrow
| pattern by configuring one online, but it's impossible to
| tell (they're not shown blinking).
|
| Kinda surprising that they're not keen on selling potential
| customers on the upgrade.
| massysett wrote:
| Oh, I had no idea it's supposed to be a Union Jack, though
| it makes sense after you said it. All it looked like to me
| was the designer intentionally doing something unbelievably
| stupid for no reason at all. I guess having a really dumb
| reason is slightly better.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| It's very weird as a union jack - there is no central
| vertical bar.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The vertical bar looks to be used as a brake light, at
| least on the European version.
|
| There are plenty of image results searching "Mini rear
| lights" or similar.
| rconti wrote:
| The salesperson doesn't care, and the dealership sells
| whatever the manufacturer ships to them. The Mini dealer
| isn't about to start stocking Kias instead of Minis.
| ThePadawan wrote:
| That's my question though.
|
| If anyone at Mini sees their 2019 model sold N in the first
| 6 months, and their 2021 model sold N/2, does anyone at
| corporate ask the dealerships to explain?
|
| I hope someone would care. What if 90% of potential buyers
| jumped off when they saw the mileage numbers. Or after the
| test drive. Or when they heard how long delivery would
| take.
|
| You know, _any_ process optimization whatsoever.
| rconti wrote:
| I'm sure they do, but as a car enthusiast, we're forever
| frustrated, because the number of people who care is
| simply miniscule.
|
| I always bought used cars and it's frustrating that, of
| course, the manufacturers/dealers only care about people
| buying new.
|
| But now, having bought a new car, I realize they STILL
| don't care about my opinion, because people who care
| about the car-like-appliances they buy are in such a
| minority.
|
| Car dealerships have scads of people lining up to throw
| money at them for the privilege of having a new car. Look
| at how various non-enthusiast vehicles become trendy and
| command huge markups -- eg, the Kia Telluride became the
| "it" child taxi a few years ago (replacing the Honda CRV)
| and every self-respecting parent simply HAD to pay
| thousands over sticker to have the latest status symbol.
|
| Go try to buy a new car and the sales people simply don't
| seem to care about you wanting a difficult to find color
| combination from another dealer. They could source one if
| they wanted to, but they don't. They're catering to the
| masses who are simply to be allowed to buy a car sitting
| on the lot. They want to make as much money as possible
| from each sale; getting a marginal sale to someone who
| actually _cares_ which option package or color they get
| simply isn 't worth it. There are too few of "us" and too
| many of "them".
|
| In the US, it's incredibly rare to people actually order
| a car from the factory the way they want it, because
| nobody is willing to wait. The buyer accepts that they
| 'have to' buy whatever is on the lot that day. With most
| cars, you have very few options you can even select from
| anyway; they're all bundled in packages of stuff you may
| or may not care about. To be fair, this is an industry-
| wide trend; having fewer SKUs, in retail parlance, makes
| a ton of sense. But I think it's particularly bad in the
| US.
| selestify wrote:
| Why are people in such a rush to get their cars? I
| understand if your old one broke down and you absolutely
| need one for a job ASAP, but if you can afford to buy a
| new car, surely you could afford to wait a bit to get
| exactly the car you want?
| lmilcin wrote:
| > they cannot see their own turn signal lights while driving.
|
| You are supposed to inspect your car at least from time to
| time. This includes walking over to see your turn signals work
| correctly.
| christophilus wrote:
| Most people I know leave that up to their service people.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Even if people look at their own cars they'd assume it's fine
| in the sense that most countries have regulations that cars
| need to meet before they can be sold.
| Bud wrote:
| We're _supposed_ to brush twice a day, get regular exercise,
| eat well, not get drunk, not smoke, have an appropriate work
| /life balance, limit screen time, get enough sun exposure,
| not get too much sun exposure, vote, floss, do unto others as
| we would have them do unto us, and change the oil every five
| thousand miles, too. But how is all that working out?
| lmilcin wrote:
| I do check my car every couple of weeks. I have a routine
| that takes about 3 minutes total. About twice a month so
| about 24 times 3 minutes ~ 1 hour per year.
|
| Although I could argue it actually takes zero time because
| I usually do this while waiting for somebody else to get
| into the car.
|
| As a side note, if you are too busy to brush your teeth you
| should consider talking to a health professional about
| consequences of not brushing teeth. Or maybe your
| wife/girlfriend.
| [deleted]
| pc86 wrote:
| Okay. You're so in the minority that we can safely say
| "nobody does this" and still have it be an accurate
| statement at a statistical level.
| sbarre wrote:
| I also inspect my car pretty regularly in a quick "walk-
| around", and check things like tire pressure at least
| monthly, if we're out here collecting anecdotes.
|
| And I don't drive anything fancy..
| shotta wrote:
| My dad put little mirrors in the garage so he can check
| the blinkers easily without leaving the vehicle.
| edoceo wrote:
| Tell you dad he's clever. And also some random fool from
| the internet is now copying him.
| [deleted]
| spockz wrote:
| I just check my lights in either glass window reflections
| or paint reflections from parked cars depending on how
| and where I'm parked.
|
| The only car that needed the engine oil checked regularly
| was our second car, a 12 year old Opel Corsa. All other
| cars kept their fluid and just needed the oil changed at
| the regular intervals.
| tromp wrote:
| And not to exceed the speed limit... just to name one
| that's universally violated.
| stemlord wrote:
| Needlessly pedantic point... no one doubts that they have
| seen the back of their car before
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| I think there is a misunderstanding.
|
| I doubt they have seen the back of their own car while they
| are driving said car.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I check my lights by turning them on and watching the glow on
| the garage door in front and wall behind the car.
|
| But with the advent of LED's, I suspect that fewer and fewer
| people are checking their lights since they rarely fail
| without physical damage.
| kmonsen wrote:
| I failed my first driving exam for not doing this. Never done
| it once more in my life.
| dheera wrote:
| Can one just swap the two lights inside?
|
| Barring that, maybe some sort of diffuser sheet inside?
| amelius wrote:
| Diffusers also make the light more dim.
| danuker wrote:
| If they're made by the manufacturer, chances are they'll
| use the proper brightness for the lights, or they wouldn't
| pass the safety approvals.
| sircastor wrote:
| I got really frustrated when I started to see 3 rapid flashes
| when a Toyota or Kia driver put on the brakes on the Highway.
| What had been a common signal for "you're a little too close"
| was now shown every time the driver pressed the brake pedal.
|
| I guess I could've complained to one of the manufacturers, but
| what do they care? I'm not buying their cars.
| kalleboo wrote:
| > _What had been a common signal for "you're a little too
| close"_
|
| I've never seen or heard of this.
|
| But seeing cars that flash their brake light under
| heavy/emergency braking is common (typically high-end
| European brands)
| sbarre wrote:
| I've commonly seen people just throw on their hazard
| blinkers in case of drastic braking on the highway...
| especially in bad weather.
|
| I've done it myself when going from regular speed to
| unexpected traffic, in the hope that the person behind me
| is paying attention...
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| This is pretty common in Germany on the Autbahn - sudden
| change in traffic, i.e. much slower going cars and
| especially when approaching the end of a jam, you turn on
| your hazard blinkers to signal this to the following
| cars. It works pretty well and is very useful (especially
| because people might be going at 200km/h behind you,
| approaching the end of a jam). Newer cars have an
| automatic high-frequency hazard flasher that triggers
| when heavy/sudden breaking occurs, also to warn the cars
| behind you.
| jowsie wrote:
| This is pretty standard in the UK, most higher end cars
| even do it automatically.
| mshook wrote:
| Even non high end do it. An old Clio or 207 from 15 years
| ago do that...
| sbarre wrote:
| I wish it was more standard where I live (Canada)..
| soneil wrote:
| I'm actually not a fan of it. Granted I've mostly driven
| older cars, without the wonders of ABS etc - but most
| situations that require heavy, unplanned breaking for me,
| are also times I really should have two hands on the
| wheel.
|
| I'm not fundamentally opposed - systems that do it
| automatically sound like a fantastic compromise. I just
| think if it's dangerous enough that I feel other drivers
| need more warning than normal, it's probably dangerous
| enough that I should have full control.
| bdamm wrote:
| First, do what you need to get the car under control.
|
| Then, switch on the hazards so the driver behind you gets
| a heads up. Obviously you don't risk crashing fumbling
| for the hazards.
|
| Particularly useful on rural roads with many turns where
| the slowdown really might be surprising, or on off ramps
| where the car behind you might not have arrived yet.
| zo1 wrote:
| Usually there is a buffer where you've noticed a hazard
| in front and are braking in time. But then your next
| focus is on what is behind you. Did they notice you
| braking hard, are the about to hit into you, do you need
| to move over for them, etc. Hazards just add a bit more
| warning that red brake lights, because they're so common,
| can't convey.
| lightdot wrote:
| It's done afterwards, once you've safely reduced the
| speed of your vehicle, not during the initial emergency
| braking.
|
| It's basically a heads up for all the vehicles far behind
| you that haven't yet noticed a sudden change in the flow
| of the traffic. Gives them more time to reduce speed
| without haste.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| People are pretty good at doing this in Ohio. I've never
| seen anyone do it in Wisconsin.
| japhyr wrote:
| This is the Pulse[0] "safety system". I was trying to buy a
| new truck this spring, and going through the back-and-forth
| of talking to a number of dealers. I had a vehicle specced
| out, and ready to commit to, and I asked to review the final
| paperwork. There was a $400 charge listed that hadn't been
| disclosed earlier. I was frustrated because I'd asked
| numerous times, "Am I going to see any additional charges on
| the final paperwork?"
|
| The dealer explained that this is a "critical safety feature"
| that they install on all the vehicles they sell. He then
| explained that it makes the brake light flash whenever you
| press the brake pedal. I read about it for 10 minutes, and
| found there's a legitimate system in use in Europe that
| detects _emergency braking_ and flashes the brake light.
| Since that system detects emergency braking and not just
| pressing the brake pedal, it doesn 't go off all the time and
| actually means something to other drivers. The Pulse system
| is just a $30 part that's spliced into the wires right behind
| the brake light, that the dealer gets to charge $400 for it.
| And it annoys everyone driving behind you.
|
| I live in a small town on an island with 14 miles of road.
| There were about five vehicles here five or ten years ago
| with this system, and they stood out because we all start to
| recognize each other's cars in an isolated town of 10,000.
| All of those cars are gone or have had the system removed. I
| told the dealer I'd look like an a***e to bring that system
| back to our town. He called back later to say I was lucky and
| they hadn't installed the system on this particular vehicle
| yet, and he got special permission to sell me one without
| Pulse. I told him I found a dealer that wasn't trying to
| upsell useless parts and hung up.
|
| I've heard of people buying new without running into this
| kind of tactic. But this is the first time I've ever bought a
| new vehicle, and I ran into almost every issue I've read
| about when dealing with new car dealers.
|
| [0] https://www.pulseprotects.com
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| It's extremely distracting while driving, and if more cars
| adopt that, then everyone will be worse off. I wish they
| were illegal (and I wonder if they technically are, because
| flashing means that for a brief second the light is off
| while the pedal is being pressed, and I have to imagine the
| law is written that the brake light must be lit when the
| brake pedal is pressed).
| billh wrote:
| Flashing red lights are generally illegal and reserved
| for emergency vehicles. Pulse skirts this by claiming
| it's not a flashing light, but a pulsing one.
|
| _" Pulse is the only pulsing third brake light that
| meets regulatory requirements for use in all 50 states.
| Step on the brake pedal and Pulse goes to work pulsing,
| rather than flashing, the third brake light. What's the
| difference? NHTSA regulations restrict flashing lights to
| emergency vehicles. Our award winning rear-end collision
| deterrent technology causes the third brake light to
| remain steady burning, even while the light pulses."_
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| Hmm... thanks for looking that up. I'm not a lawyer, but
| I imagine the court has discretion to throw that
| explanation out of the window.
| billh wrote:
| IMO it would be better for NHTSA to create rulemaking
| that would regulate pulsing brake lights for use under
| heavy braking conditions similar to Europe. Effectively
| making it a safety feature instead of yet another
| annoying distraction on the road that this pulse system
| puts out.
| masklinn wrote:
| > The dealer explained that this is a "critical safety
| feature" that they install on all the vehicles they sell.
| He then explained that it makes the brake light flash
| whenever you press the brake pedal. I read about it for 10
| minutes, and found there's a legitimate system in use in
| Europe that detects emergency braking and flashes the brake
| light. Since that system detects emergency braking and not
| just pressing the brake pedal, it doesn't go off all the
| time and actually means something to other drivers.
|
| Good god, slimy sales tactics asides that sounds like
| complete cargo-culting of the feature making it not just
| useless for its original purpose but actively misleading.
|
| And I would expect the original feature grew at least in
| part from the common habit (I don't think it's ever
| required) of enabling _the hazards_ when reaching an
| unforeseen obstruction: on many cars these days the hazards
| will automatically switch on during emergency braking
| (usually detected via an accelerometer, it tends to come on
| at the same time as brake assist though I don 't think the
| two are coupled), it's possible that on some the brakes
| will also flash though I can't remember ever seeing that.
|
| Of course many US cars have red turn signals / hazards, and
| US standards even allow brakes and turn signals to use the
| same lights, which is... not sane.
| rconti wrote:
| There are a fair number of vehicles on the road already
| with enhanced emergency brake lights; BMW in particular
| comes to mind. If you REALLY romp on it, another set of
| segments will light up, I think it might be the rear fogs
| that come on, along with a single additional flash. Not
| the godawful strobing every time you brush the brakes
| like with these "pulse" systems. (which thankfully seem
| incredibly rare on the west coast.. for now).
|
| One particularly awful safety feature actually ramps up
| brake force assist when it "detects" emergency braking
| behavior; typically abrupt lift off of the throttle and
| subsequent application of the brake.
|
| They never considered that maybe I WANT to abruptly lift
| off the throttle and then GENTLY apply the brakes,
| without having my head thrown towards the steering wheel.
| u801e wrote:
| > There are a fair number of vehicles on the road already
| with enhanced emergency brake lights; BMW in particular
| comes to mind.
|
| FMVSS 108 still requires steady illumination of the stop
| lamps (including the center high mounted one). I found
| one article[1] staying that the NHTSA granted a temporary
| exception to that requirement for Mercedes in 2006. Was
| that exemption expanded and is it still in effect?
|
| [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna11351634
| billh wrote:
| Pulse has a "Gross Margin Analysis" spreadsheet published
| (probably unintentionally) on their website[1]. It shows
| that they're charging dealerships $59.00 for the part and
| it installs in about 15 minutes.
|
| At a 500% markup, it feels less about your safety and more
| about the dealerships/pulseprotects income safety.
|
| 1. (warning xls) https://www.pulseprotects.com/wp-
| content/uploads/Pulse-Prote...
| wolpoli wrote:
| > Dealership Monthly Investment calculation is based upon
| a Dealership un-installing modules on vehicles sold
| without Pulse.
|
| The profit calculation is based on preinstalling the
| system on every vehicle that goes on the lot, and then
| uninstalling it on request. This means opting out costs
| the dealership real money, from installing and then
| uninstalling it.
| unilynx wrote:
| The emergency braking (I didn't know it was Europe-
| specific) flashes the hazard lights (turn indicators), not
| the brake lights.
|
| And at least in my Auris it also flashed the hazard light
| indicator inside the car
| olex wrote:
| Many EU-spec cars have the brake lights flash under
| emergency braking, and the hazards come on if the car
| comes to a stop after that. This is how it was
| implemented in several cars I owned - a C-class, an Audi
| A5, and now in a EU-spec Model 3 as well.
| mjlee wrote:
| I'm reasonably sure this is because in the US the rear brake
| lights are often also used as the turn signal and the hazard
| lights.
|
| Under hard braking on European/Japanese cars the hazard
| lights will automatically come on. Because they're overloaded
| in the US it's hard to tell if it's that, or the brake lights
| flashing unless you're paying close attention to the middle
| brake light.
|
| Edit: Just seen the comment about the Pulse system - didn't
| know about that!
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| > Unless you're paying close attention to the middle brake
| light
|
| Better hope it's not burnt out, like I see all too often in
| North America
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| > _3 rapid flashes [...] a common signal for "you're a little
| too close"_
|
| That's new to me as EU driver. What I tend to do is hit
| brakes three or more times in a rhythmic fashion to signal
| there's traffic jam ahead; specifically on Autobahn where
| speeds go high with distances often way too low, instead of
| turning on alarm blinkers.
| pc86 wrote:
| This isn't the manufacturer, they're aftermarket. It started
| (sensibly) with some emergency vehicles having it to make
| sure to get the attention of the driver[s] behind them. At
| some point people in high-traffic areas started thinking
| their 18 year old Corolla was worthy of the same treatment.
| vesrah wrote:
| Meanwhile, this is standard on some European market cars
| under heavy braking.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Meanwhile, this is standard on some European market cars
| under heavy braking._
|
| Instead of blinking the brake lights, some U.S. cars
| automatically turn on the hazard lights under heavy
| braking. It's standard on mine.
| u801e wrote:
| Which models do that? And do they have amber color turn
| signal lamps?
| Symbiote wrote:
| In Europe under emergency braking, the brake lights pulse
| (I think, i.e. from half-lit to full-lit) and the hazard
| lights flash too. The hazard lights stay lit if you stop,
| at least on some cars.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTXR5JMsR5o
| wiether wrote:
| > Mini has not heard any concerns from customers regarding the
| rear turn indicators
|
| That perfectly summarize the car industry. Manufacturers only
| care about the people in the car. It's not their problem if
| their car are death machines for everyone outside.
| kazen44 wrote:
| in my experience this is not true for most european
| manufacturers. (no clue about american ones).
|
| Volvo for instance, does a great job of thinking about safety
| in their cars, and so do the big three german manufacturers
| in my experience.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The Mini is designed and manufactured in the UK, Germany
| and elsewhere in Europe. It's owned by BMW.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >> Mini has not heard any concerns from customers regarding the
| rear turn indicators
|
| >I wouldn't expect them to: they cannot see their own turn
| signal lights while driving.
|
| >If they happen to be behind another Mini, they already know
| about it
|
| The second sentence indicates that they would not inform Mini
| of any concerns because they are not aware there should be any
| concerns.
|
| The third sentence indicates that they would know if there were
| any possible concerns because they own a Mini.
| paperoli wrote:
| I drive everyday in an area with lots of minis with these
| indicator lights and have never had a problem with them, I think
| they look great.
| danity wrote:
| Lighten up, have a little fun. embrace quirks. Not everything
| needs to be generic and cleansed of all personality.
| VortexDream wrote:
| Ah, yes. Form over function, the driving principle for many
| insane UX "improvements" over the past 20 years. Personality is
| great. It's not more important than clarity or other related
| concerns though.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| I would love to embrace quirks in all areas of life EXCEPT the
| safety aspect of heavy machinery.
| Bud wrote:
| Same. I drove a MINI for 18 years partly because they are so
| quirky and that's enjoyable, but this is simply the wrong
| kind of thing to indulge quirkiness in.
|
| Turn signals need to function well as turn signals. That's
| vitally important. You can't fuck with that by making the
| signal actively and hilariously misleading. It's just not ok.
| woutr_be wrote:
| I doubt anyone would've called it stupid when the arrows
| pointed in the direction the car would be driving. There's zero
| common sense in reversing them.
| williamdclt wrote:
| Honestly I'd be fine with blinkers being anything, make them
| emojis for all I care, _except_ arrows pointing the wrong
| direction. The quirkiness isn't the problem at all here
| samjewell wrote:
| Perhaps we should invest some of these energies thinking about
| getting on our bicycles instead
| robg wrote:
| Long history of this effect in cognitive science, have to
| suppress the incongruity.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eriksen_flanker_task
|
| I'm with the author, having the arrows point the right way would
| be cool.
| knolan wrote:
| Flashing the red brake light is a North American thing. Over in
| Europe you would have a dedicated amber light and I expect there
| is a different light than the Union Jack which would be reserved
| for combined rear and brake lights only.
|
| I've seen a mini with these lights recently here in Ireland and
| I'd expect the driver may find their car burnt out sooner rather
| than later.
| vinay427 wrote:
| > Flashing the red brake light is a North American thing
|
| Nowadays, the brake light is rarely used. It's usually a
| different part of the taillight cluster which may be red or
| amber, and most manufacturers (especially European ones,
| ironically) sometimes choose to use a red one for NA markets.
| The complaint here isn't that the brake lights are being used,
| but that the turn signal is designed like this.
| knolan wrote:
| I agree, it's a baffling decision. I had a brief look to see
| if I could see the European implementation but I've not found
| anything yet.
|
| Edit: here is an example:
|
| https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0272/7303/5875/products/1_.
| ..
| masklinn wrote:
| > It's usually a different part of the taillight cluster
| which may be red or amber,
|
| Which remains one of the issues, even if it's not technically
| a brake light. In Europe red turning signs are not legal.
|
| But I can see how the same turn signal in amber would help
| very little, as you'd still have a very clear, very bright
| arrow _pointing the wrong way entirely_.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I find it crazy that Americans allow turn signals to use the
| same red lights as brakes considering how many different safety
| rules they have. Like how all cars have to have amber
| reflectors on the front bumpers, which almost all European cars
| have to add almost as an afterthought [1], or how the door lock
| pins can't be flush with the door (at least I assume this is
| regulation since I never see non-flush door lock pins in
| European cars). And now the most recent one is the mandatory
| backup cameras, and I don't think I know any other country in
| the world where those are mandated by law.
|
| [1]
| https://live.staticflickr.com/4623/39623465442_7519e01f0b_o....
| jdavis703 wrote:
| America has the highest per capita traffic deaths among OECD
| countries. Our traffic / vehicle regulations aren't that
| strong and are rarely enforced on after-market modifications.
|
| This is getting downvotes, but it's literally legal to drive
| a jacked up, high center of gravity pickup trucks in the US.
| Meanwhile in Europe such a modification would be illegal
| because it reduces front-facing visibility.
| kibwen wrote:
| Per miles driven the US has an average number of traffic
| deaths. The problem is that the country's infrastructure is
| designed so poorly that the number of miles driven per
| capita is laughably absurd.
| kashura wrote:
| Maybe the root cause is the laughably easy barrier of
| entry to have a license to drive a death missile? It's a
| multi faceted issue of course, but to me, getting better
| educated drivers on the road is by far the easiest
| problem to solve around driving.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| >> Per miles driven the US has an average number of
| traffic deaths.
|
| > Maybe the root cause is the laughably easy barrier of
| entry to have a license to drive a death missile?
|
| You're saying we should make driver's licenses punitively
| difficult to get in order to shift American population
| structure in the direction of dense settlements?
|
| The reason America isn't densely settled is much simpler
| than that; there aren't very many people in America.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I would say almost everyone knows not to text and drive,
| or run red lights or to speed. Yet these are all frequent
| occurrences. Even proposals to add speed or red light
| cameras (with strict rules to prevent municipal abuse)
| face heavy opposition. I don't think education alone will
| fix traffic safety.
| oblio wrote:
| Speed cameras I can (kind of) understand, but what
| possible reasonable explanation could they have for
| blocking red light camera installation?
| blendergeek wrote:
| Many people oppose automated law enforcement in (almost)
| all forms.
| oblio wrote:
| Why, for this specific case?
| userbinator wrote:
| It's "very American" to value personal freedom above all
| else. The EU culture is more collectivist.
| tblt wrote:
| > I'd expect the driver may find their car burnt out sooner
| rather than later
|
| Forgive my ignorance, does anti-UK sentiment really run this
| deep in Ireland today or is this hyperbole?
| knolan wrote:
| In the general population no, but for the type of person who
| engages in antisocial behaviour I fully expect this to
| happen. The irony is that the they would do it while wearing
| a UK football team's jersey.
|
| http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/feb2007/p2240016.jpg
| fredoralive wrote:
| European Minis have those stupid looking Union Jack light
| clusters, but IIRC it's just the horizontal bar that flashes
| yellow on those, not the extra diagonal bits that make them
| into reverse arrows.
| jowsie wrote:
| Can confirm this is how UK spec Mini's behave.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-26 23:00 UTC)