When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
To avoid confusion, I have long-advocated a Federal safety-regulation requiring amber-colored turn signals for both front and rear. But, so far, DOT and NHTSA have not seen fit to implement that rule.
Agreed that red doesn't seem to be effective for turning. Also, I don't understand why DOT doesn't ban the use of rear fog lamps--this isn't Europe and we don't drive 155 mph....
Where the signals are placed has nothing to do with how closely I would follow. They should be optimally placed so that those behind can see them. I am sorry, but I cannot leave 1-3 car lengths at a stop sign, where I live. It simply isn't possible, and I was never trained to leave that kind of distance at a stop. You're probably being tongue in cheek, or you didn't see that I am referring to being at a complete stop. No question the signals can be seen when driving at speed.
Requoting my original post for clarity.
Originally Posted by sm1ke
I have a personal rule that I use. If I can no longer see the rear tires of the car in front of me over the hood of my car, I am too close to the vehicle. This only applies when I'm stopped, or I'm coming to a stop.
In moving traffic,I usually keep 1-3 car lengths behind depending on how fast traffic is moving. In either case, I can see the entire *** end of the vehicle at all times.
Hope that clears it up.
In both cases, specifically when I'm at a stop, the entire rear end of the vehicle is visible at all times, so it doesn't matter where the turn signals are mounted. When I stop behind a vehicle as mentioned above, I usually have about half a car's length of space between my car and the car in front of me. If I ever stop too close to the car in front of me and their turn signal does happen to be obstructed, I just wait to accelerate until their turn signals are in view. That way, I don't run the risk of an accidental fender bender that would be deemed my fault.
I'd like to add that I've been in situations (mostly during rush hour) where a car with a signal in the lower bumper was signaling to merge into my lane. Because they were at my 2'oclock, I couldn't see their turn signal flashing and they almost merged into me. If their turn signal had been in the normal location, it would have been very obvious and I could have slowed down to let them in.
I don't camp in blind spots but during rush hour, everyone is going <10mph so you'll always be in someone's blind spot.
Where the signals are placed has nothing to do with how closely I would follow. They should be optimally placed so that those behind can see them. I am sorry, but I cannot leave 1-3 car lengths at a stop sign, where I live. It simply isn't possible, and I was never trained to leave that kind of distance at a stop. You're probably being tongue in cheek, or you didn't see that I am referring to being at a complete stop. No question the signals can be seen when driving at speed.
I don’t care where you live. Everyone can leave enough room at a stop sign or light to see the signal of the person in front of them. That’s a YOU problem. You weren’t “trained” that way? Retrain yourself.
Driver training for decades has traditionally taught students that you should be able to see the rear tires of the vehicle in front of you when you are stopped or coming to a stop. The other rule is that there is a car length for every 10 mph. I don't think design has anything to do with this. Stop and go traffic and rush hour traffic jams have made drivers feel more "competitive" and so they "crowd" their lanes to make sure that "guy" doesn't shoehorn themselves in front of you and "cut in front of the line". Driver psychology 101.
Can't see the rear turn signals of the driver in front of you? You're too close to that vehicle. Would you tailgate a police car or a big tractor trailer like that? No you won't, for the obvious reasons: 1. the cop in front of you is going to be really interested in your overly friendly behaviour. 2. when that semi driver has to jam on his brakes because of the idiot in front of him doing something stupid, your windshield is going give you a wonderful view of the underside of his trailer, or your hood will find out what his metal safety guards feel like.
The majority of drivers do not leave enough space between cars at a stop. You can look at any intersection at any red light, any day, any city, and see this happening 90% of the time. That is just plain fact and has been the case for decades. So placing turn signals below a sight-line is indeed hazardous. One can call out, "you are stopping too close" all day long, but that doesn't address what people do in reality. Again, study one intersection for five minutes. Are we going to make lights safe for how people actually drive or are we going to spend the next twenty years telling people to stop further back and never make any progress? I rather they make the lights safer.
I observed yesterday, with many vehicles. One thing I notice is that no two cars have the license plate at the same level, so obviously there is no standard there.
For an ordinary sedan, when I pulled up to the vehicle, and my hood lines up with the bottom edge of the plate, I am at a proper distance at a stop. Now, if said vehicle had turn signals on the bumper, I would not be able to see them.
We fundamentally disagree on this one, I do not believe that the car behind needs to position themselves to see a turn signal, I think it's the other way around.
If I were a YouTuber with signifcant resources, I would actually get a new Santa Fe, stop it at a line, then come up behind, stop at a normal distance, and then post pics of the view from the vehicle behind showing the turn signals are not visible, and also from the outside to show the distance between the said vehicles. But I don't have those resources available to me. Those folks that say one is supposed to stop so far back such that those signals are visible, it would be interesting to know where they live. I'm thinking in rural places possibly where there isn't a level of density of traffic, but I couldn't say.
The majority of drivers do not leave enough space between cars at a stop. You can look at any intersection at any red light, any day, any city, and see this happening 90% of the time. That is just plain fact and has been the case for decades. So placing turn signals below a sight-line is indeed hazardous. One can call out, "you are stopping too close" all day long, but that doesn't address what people do in reality. Again, study one intersection for five minutes. Are we going to make lights safe for how people actually drive or are we going to spend the next twenty years telling people to stop further back and never make any progress? I rather they make the lights safer.
Lol, what an argument. Instead of addressing the root cause, you want to enable this problematic behaviour by making lights "safer". Tell me, how would you even go about doing that? Lobbying auto manufacturers to consider drivers like OP who put themselves in the position they're complaining about? A petition to have turn signals mounted higher because "we can't see them when we're right behind you"?
Originally Posted by Johnhav430
I am at a proper distance at a stop.
I think I understand why you're complaining now. You believe that when stopping behind the car in front of you, there is some set distance between your front bumper and their rear that is considered universal, regardless of what both of you are driving.
Me, I believe that the distance is based on whether I can see your tires or not, thus the distance is not set to anything specific - instead it is based on the vehicle I'm driving at the time.
Originally Posted by Johnhav430
We fundamentally disagree on this one, I do not believe that the car behind needs to position themselves to see a turn signal, I think it's the other way around.
How does this make any sense? A car is stopped at a light, signal on. You pull up behind them, so closely that you can no longer see their signal. What do you expect them to do? Move up because you put yourself in a position where you can't see their signal? What's the point, when you'd likely just move up behind them to close the gap and "maintain proper distance"?
Originally Posted by Johnhav430
Those folks that say one is supposed to stop so far back such that those signals are visible, it would be interesting to know where they live. I'm thinking in rural places possibly where there isn't a level of density of traffic, but I couldn't say.
Since you're interested, I live in Winnipeg, MB. Population of over 700k spread out over 180 square miles. There are no highways/freeways within the city. I also lived in Calgary, AB for four years. I've had my share of bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic on Deerfoot Trail, enough to know how far I should be behind the car in front of me at all times. The type of behaviour you're explaining isn't lost on me, there were plenty of drivers who spent their oil money on lifted pickups and love stopping just as close as you do.
That may be how they were taught to drive, and I can appreciate that it may be how you were taught to drive as well. All I can say is that in the event of an accident caused by following too closely behind a turning vehicle, you would be found at fault for not leaving enough space to see their signal.
What's even worse is vehicles that have red turn signals and use the same part of the lamp for turn and brake. How this is legal I have no idea it is not safe at all.
wow, in the scheme of things that are 'not safe at all' i would put this near the bottom. my g90 has red led integrated lights for turn and brake and i love them. don't want orange anywhere thanks, although the FRONT drl led bars, normally white, turn orange when operating as turn signals!
you ran into her, even at 2mph, and she needs to get real?
joking. Someone did that to me at a BJ's Warehouse gas station, told me it's fine! Then proceeded to get gas. The only car I would care is with the BMW, so luckily it was not with the BMW.
(this is a Lexus forum so I'm sure some are saying BJ's Warehouse, good **** that is a peasant move)
Lol, what an argument. Instead of addressing the root cause, you want to enable this problematic behaviour by making lights "safer". Tell me, how would you even go about doing that? Lobbying auto manufacturers to consider drivers like OP who put themselves in the position they're complaining about? A petition to have turn signals mounted higher because "we can't see them when we're right behind you"?
I think I understand why you're complaining now. You believe that when stopping behind the car in front of you, there is some set distance between your front bumper and their rear that is considered universal, regardless of what both of you are driving.
Me, I believe that the distance is based on whether I can see your tires or not, thus the distance is not set to anything specific - instead it is based on the vehicle I'm driving at the time.
How does this make any sense? A car is stopped at a light, signal on. You pull up behind them, so closely that you can no longer see their signal. What do you expect them to do? Move up because you put yourself in a position where you can't see their signal? What's the point, when you'd likely just move up behind them to close the gap and "maintain proper distance"?
Since you're interested, I live in Winnipeg, MB. Population of over 700k spread out over 180 square miles. There are no highways/freeways within the city. I also lived in Calgary, AB for four years. I've had my share of bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic on Deerfoot Trail, enough to know how far I should be behind the car in front of me at all times. The type of behaviour you're explaining isn't lost on me, there were plenty of drivers who spent their oil money on lifted pickups and love stopping just as close as you do.
That may be how they were taught to drive, and I can appreciate that it may be how you were taught to drive as well. All I can say is that in the event of an accident caused by following too closely behind a turning vehicle, you would be found at fault for not leaving enough space to see their signal.
LOL ok I know you're kidding around. I am talking about when stopped, completely. I am not talking about when moving. There's nothing wrong with 1-3 car lengths when moving. If one were to leave 1-3 car lengths at a stop, there are many left arrow'd intersections where only 1 vehicle would be able to clear on green. That's selfish when a person does not make it such that the maximum number of people can clear per cycle.
Because you guys are playing around, I will too. Here is a clear example of where the driver in the sedan, has left way too much distance, between his vehicle, and the one in front. If there is any chance a piece of paper can fit between the clearance, then there is too much distance. OK?
Now, I'll get serious. We know that the SUV has turn signals up on the gate level. Imagine if those reflectors were in fact his turn signals, on how ineffective they would be.
LOL ok I know you're kidding around. I am talking about when stopped, completely. I am not talking about when moving. There's nothing wrong with 1-3 car lengths when moving. If one were to leave 1-3 car lengths at a stop, there are many left arrow'd intersections where only 1 vehicle would be able to clear on green. That's selfish when a person does not make it such that the maximum number of people can clear per cycle.
You must have missed post #17 where I reiterated my position after you misinterpreted it the first time.
Also, in my first quoted response to you, I wrote: "You believe that when stopping behind the car in front of you, there is some set distance between your front bumper and their rear that is considered universal, regardless of what both of you are driving."
Not sure where you're getting 1-3 car lengths from, I stated quite clearly that 1-3 car lengths is the distance I use in moving traffic.
Now, I'll get serious. We know that the SUV has turn signals up on the gate level. Imagine if those reflectors were in fact his turn signals, on how ineffective they would be.
It's funny that you post this because it proves the point I'm making. You wouldn't be able to see the turn signals/reflectors because of how close you are. If you had stopped a few feet short, they would be in plain view.
03-04-19 | 01:35 PM
